university of technology malaysia (utm) · 3-4 nov 2016 faculty of education blended learning &...

University of Technology Malaysia (UTM)

Centre for Engineering Education (CEE)

Report for Training of Trainers for MoHE Afghanistan

Nov 29, 2016

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

1.0 Overall Activiy and Official Visits ...................................................................................... 2

2.0 OBE and Program Assessment Workshop ......................................................................... 5

3.0 Student-Centred Learning Workshops ................................................................................ 5

4.0 Blended Learning Approach Using Moodle ....................................................................... 7

5.0 OBE & SCL Champions Final Assessment ..................................................................... 11

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11

5.2 Individual assessment summary .................................................................................... 12

Annex: ...................................................................................................................................... 18

2 | P a g e

1.0 Overall Activiy and Official Visits

From Oct 26 to Nov. 6 2016, the Centre for Engineering Education, together with the help of UTM

International Office and a few faculties organized training and official visits for the Ministry of Higher

Education Delegates. CEE also organized a dinner and assessment besides the training. The summary

of the visit is in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of visit

Date & Time Venue Activity Participants

26/10/2016

10am

Raja Zarith Sofia Library Visit the resources facilities at

UTM library

All

26/10/2016

11am

Faculty of Education Visit to Faculty of Education All

26/10/2016

1pm

Dewan Jamuan Lunch All

26/10/2016

2pm

Dewan Senat Official introduction to UTM All

26/10/2016

4pm

UTM Campus Tour All

27-28 Oct

2016, 8:30 am

– 5:00 pm

T02 OBE & Program Assessment

Training

All

30 Oct – 2 Nov

2016, 8:30 am

– 5:00 pm

T02 SCL Parts 1&2 Training All

2/11/2016

2pm

Faculty of Education Visit faculty 8

Faculty of Computing Visit faculty 3

Language Academy Visit faculty 2

Faculty of Civil

Engineering

Visit faculty 3

2/11/2016

8pm

Big Food Restaurant,

Johor Bahru

Dinner All

3-4 Nov 2016 Faculty of Education Blended learning & e-learning

training

All

5/11/2016 CEE Assessment All

3 | P a g e

Visit to Raja Zarith Sofiah Library on 26th November 2016

Visit to Faculty of Education on 26th November 2016

4 | P a g e

Introduction to UTM 26th November 2016

Dinner at Johor Bahru on 2nd November 2016

5 | P a g e

2.0 OBE and Program Assessment Workshop The workshop was specifically designed for faculty/staff to learn on aligning learning

outcomes, how to carry out program-level assessment and decision making and, to efficiently

collect data at course level for program assessment. The format of this workshop included a

presentation, activity, and Q&A.

24 faculty/staff participated in the workshop held on 27 – 28 October 2016 at Seminar Room,

Block T02, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The session was considered a trainer-level

workshop and was facilitated by Prof. Dr. Shahrin Mohammad, Prof. Dr. Hjh Siti Hawa

Hamzah, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yudariah Mohammad Yusof, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Naziha Ahmad Azli

and Tn. Hj. Yahya Samian. Topics covered include (1) An Overview of OBE and Program

Assessment (2) Assessment under OBE System (3) Formulating Effective Assessment (4)

Implementation of OBE: Assessment.

The format of providing real examples, a hands-on exercise, and allowing time for discussion

was well received and it is highly recommended that it should remain the same for future

workshops. The duration of the workshop was 2 days with each session ranging from 90 to 120

or more minutes and this had allowed sufficient presentation and discussion of the four topics. In addition, the workshop addresses many of the predicaments, problems encountered and

comments put forward by the participants. These include among others aspects related to: how

to better address academic programs, developing a consistent and standardised approach to

assessment, purpose of assessment, developing rubrics and CQI cycle. There were also request

for more information on how to apply the ideas through the activities in their own field.

A pre-test was distributed prior to the first workshop session and again at the end of the final

session on the second day. The test consisted of two parts: Part A on Outcome Based Education

(OBE) and Part B on Assessment for OBE. In each part there are 15 MCQs and five open-

ended quiz questions. Refer to Questions listed in Appendix A. A total of 24 participants took

part and all 24 responded and submitted the forms. Overall the workshop had increased

respondents understanding of OBE, collecting and using results to guide program-level

assessment. The results suggest that majority of the participants (87%) met the desired learning

outcomes as shown in Table 2: they managed to answer the questions in the post-test although

not all correctly answered the open-ended items on the evaluation form. Previously only 56%

managed to answer the questions correctly in the pre-test. Besides, it was observed that some

participants needed further support to comprehend aspects of OBE in sufficient depth for

effective implementation.

3.0 Student-Centred Learning Workshops

The student centred learning (SCL) workshops for trainers, held for four days from October 30

to November 2 (a total of 4 days), were divided into 2 parts: Engaging students with Active

Learning (AL) and Team-based Learning using Cooperative Learning (CL). The facilitators

of the workshop are Prof. Dr. Khairiyah Mohd Yusof, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatin Aliah Phang and

Dr. Syed Ahmad Helmi. Each part of the SCL workshop was conducted in 2 days. On the first

day, important concepts were discussed to clear misconceptions and strengthen understanding.

For the AL workshop, important learning theories were also learned by the participants, since

they will become champions and trainers. On the second day, the participants were divided into

6 | P a g e

groups and were given the workshop slides to conduct mock workshop sessions, and were then

given feedback on their extent of understanding and their delivery.

Table 2. Pre and post test scores for the OBE and program assessment workshop

Name Pre-test (%) Post-test (%)

Abdul Qayoom Qaeem 37 50

Ahmad Javid Shakib 33 30

Ali Jam Adil 37 53

Asadullah Tareen 22 37

Bashir Ahmad Jawaid 48 50

Brishna Dawlaty 55 55

Chaman Ali Hikmat 35 48

Enayatullah Hamdard 33 50

Hizbullah Rahmani 30 52

Khadem Hussain 33 57

Masaood Maahid 30 43

Masoda Khairzada 22 54

Mohammad Anwer Anwer 35 63

Mohammad Qasam 24 50

Mohammad Sharif 22 39

Nommanudien Naibkhil 48 50

Sayed Ahmad Mahboobi 24 48

Sayed Jawid Azimi 30 41

Spozhmay Oriya 37 52

Toufiq Sarwazada 59 57

Wafaurahman Wafa 37 52

Zahibullah Alimyar 33 48

Zarghoom Tareen 28 57

A pre-test was given at the beginning of both parts of the workshop. The AL post-test was

given at the end of the second day, while the second post-test for CL was given at the second

part of the workshop. From the scores shown in Tables 3 and 4, all the participants improved

their understanding on AL and CL. However, there were a few participants who scored less

than 50 in the post test. This is of concern because there may be a severe lack of understanding

on the participants’ side, who will later become champions and train others. Therefore, it is

recommended that they be mentored and paired with other champions who have a better

understanding to develop their knowledge and practice for training workshops conducted in

Afghanistan.

Table 3. Pre and post test scores for the AL workshop

7 | P a g e




Ali Jan Adil 32 58






Hayatullah Jawad 7 59


Khadem Hussain Saeedi 23 79

Masaood Moahid 18 52

Masoda Khairzada 0 17

Mohammad Anwar 13 48

Mohammad Qasim Adil 0 10

MuhammadSharif Hassanzoy 8 45



Sayed Javid Azimi 16 45

Spozhmay Oriya 31 62

Toufiq Sarwarzada 43 76


Zabiullah Alimyar 36 72

Zarghoon Tareen 43 83

4.0 Blended Learning Approach Using Moodle

The workshop was been successfully running smoothly with participants from Afghanistan

started the session by taking a pre-test before the workshop starts. The purpose of the pre-test

was to determine the level of knowledge of the participants about the workshop to be

conducted.

Generally there was a gap in terms of participant’s ability and knowledge of ICT where there

were participants who required the support of facilitators for step-by-step and hoped that the

implementation of workshop did not run too fast. These participants were also often ask the

facilitator to repeat the steps that had been shown and caused the workshop to run relatively

slow. However, the workshop was accomplished successfully without compromising any

topics that were planned before.

8 | P a g e

Table 4. Pre and post test scores for the CL workshop




Ali Jan Adil 41 64






Hayatullah Jawad 0 55


Khadem Hussain Saeedi 27 64

Masaood Moahid 27 36

Masoda Khairzada 9 -

Mohammad Anwar 27 45

Mohammad Qasim Adil 18 27

Muhammad Sharif Hassanzoy 9 36



Sayed Javid Azimi 23 55

Spozhmay Oriya 9 50

Toufiq Sarwarzada 23 73


Zabiullah Alimyar 32 55

Zarghoon Tareen 32 50

After the pre-test was carried out, hands-on session with the participants were conducted via

Moodle by the participants made verification of information on their respective web sites that

had been installed in ppsmj.com.my/elearning website. The participants were succefully

registered and validated their information via the e-learning website. In the end, they also

managed to update their information.

Sessions were continued as planned with each topic conducted with hands-on with the help of

experienced facilitators. In the afternoon, the introduction of Blended Learning sessions took

place. The participants showed a relatively high interest on this topic and had asked for more

of the use of Web 2.0 tools such as Prezi, Powtoon, Google App and Padlet which were covered

on the second day.

The workshop had been amended to forward two Moodle slots in the afternoon to the morning

slot to make slot for the continuation of Web 2.0 tools. Participants were also exposed to use

LMS that does not require the installation of server such Schoology and Workshop

Networking. There are some participants who expressed their interest in using thes LMS at

their respective institutions.

Before the end of the workshop on the second day, participants took the post-test via e-learning

and testing was conducted on-line. Pre-test was conducted using a pen and paper on the first

day of the workshop, but the post-test was on-line to provide experience of online assessment

through Moodle to the participants.

9 | P a g e

Based on the pre and post test scores as shown in Table 5, most of the participants improved

or maintained their scores, except for 3 participants. Nevertheless, the decline in scores for the

3 participants were small. On the other hand, many of the participants scored significantly

higher in the post test compared to the pre test, attesting to their learning. Since this is an

introductory course, it is normal to expect slightly lower scores because many of the

participants have not used e-learning and blended learning before. Given their limited

exposure, it is recommended that further reinforcement be given to the participants in the near

future. Table 5. Marks for Pre test and Post test for e-learning and blended learning workshop

Surname First name Email address

Pre-

test

(%)

Post-

test

(%)

Oriya Spozhmay [email protected] 32 56

Sarwarzada Toufiq [email protected] 48 72

Hikmat Chaman Ali [email protected] 44 48

Hamdard Enayatullah [email protected] 40 52

Mahboobi Sayed Ahmad [email protected] 28 56

Dawlaty Brishna [email protected] 60 56

Anwer

Mohammad

Anwer [email protected] 52 60

Adil Ali Jan [email protected] 40 44

Rahmani Hezbullah [email protected] 48 68

Wafa Wafaurahman [email protected] 48 56

Hassanzoy

Muhammad

Sharif [email protected] 36 44

Khairzada Masoda [email protected] 40 40

Tareen Asadullah [email protected] 40 56

Naibkhil Nommanudien [email protected] 56 52

Saeedi

Khadem

Hussain [email protected] 40 56

Shakib Ahmad Javid [email protected] 36 52

Alim Zabih [email protected] 44 48

Azimi Sayed Javid [email protected] 52 40

Moahid Masaood [email protected] 40 56

Jawad Hayatullah [email protected] 40 48

Qaeem Abdul Qayoom [email protected] 60 60

Tareen Zarghoon [email protected] 56 48

ADIL QASAM [email protected] 36 44

10 | P a g e

Some photos taken during the workshop.

11 | P a g e

5.0 OBE & SCL Champions Final Assessment

5.1 Introduction After the training, all the 24 lecturers underwent an oral assessment to understand to what extent they

have mastered OBE and SCL, their readiness and capability to conduct training on OBE and SCL to

other lecturers in Afghanistan and the quality of the portfolio. There are 5 components for the

assessment, which are:

A. Teaching Portfolio (total 12 marks)

B. Teaching Method (total 20 marks)

C. Reflection (total 8 marks)

D. Readiness as Trainer (total 8 marks)

E. Portfolio (total 4 marks)

The total mark for each candidate is 56 marks. Table 6 shows the marks of the champions for each

component.

Table 6. Assessment Score for OBE and SCL Champions

Champion

A.

Teaching Philosophy (Total: 16)

B. Teaching Method

(Total: 20)

C. Reflection (Total: 8)

D. Readiness as Trainer (Total: 8)

E. Portfolio (Total: 4)

Total (56)

Brishna Dawlaty 16 20 8 8 4 56

Abdul Qayoom Qaeem

16 20 8 8 4 56

Mohammad Anwer

16 18 8 8 3 53

Zarghoon Tareen 16 18 8 8 3 53

Mohammad Sharif Hasanzoy

16 18 8 8 3 53

Toufiq Sarwarzada

16 20 8 4 4 52

Nommanudien Naibkhil

15 18 8 7 3 51

Ali Jan Adil 14 18 8 8 3 51

Zabiullah Alimyar 14 18 8 7 3 50

Sayed Javid Azimi

16 15 8 7 4 50

Hizbullah Rahmani

16 15 8 8 2 49

Khadem Hussain Saeedi

12 19 7 8 3 49

Wafaurahman Wafa

15 19 7 6 2 49

Enayatullah Hamdard

12 18 8 8 3 49

Chaman Ali Hikmat

14 17 8 7 3 49

12 | P a g e

Bashir Ahmad Jawaid

14 17 8 7 3 49

Ahmad Javid Shakib

15 15 6 8 3 47

Sayed Ahmad Mahboobi

12 18 7 7 3 47

Masaood Moahid

15 15 7 7 3 47

Spozhmay Oriya 13 18 6 4 2 43

Hayatullah Jawad

14 11 8 8 2 43

Asadullah Tareen 10 16 7 6 1 40

Masoda Khairzada

10 15 7 4 2 38

Mohamad Qasam Adil

10 14 6 5 2 37

5.2 Individual assessment summary

Brishna Dawlaty scored 56/56 for the assessment. She prepared a very extensive portfolio detailing all

the she has learnt on OBE and SCL with in depth learning reflection that translates into her practice.

She also shows examples of how OBE is used in her teaching. The score for her reflection is 12/12 and

portfolio is 4/4. She understands very well OBE and SCL, and can explain them correctly. She has the

positive attitude to change the way that she teaches and can influence others to change their teaching.

She is ready to be a trainer and champion in OBE and SCL. With more practice and opportunity given,

she can contribute more for her country and in teaching higher education.

Abdul Qayoom Qaeem scored the full marks of 56/56 for the assessment during interview session. He

impressed the interviewers by his in-depth knowledge on OBE and SCL. Not only did he manage to

clearly and enthusiastically explain his understandings towards OBE and SCL, but he was also able to

put the acquired concepts and theories into his practice by implementing what he had learned during

the OBE course in his own classes. During the trial and error phases of conducting SCL, he managed

to turn his statistic classes, which was perceived by many of his students to be boring, into classes that

students really enjoyed. Based on his students’ positive feedback to the SCL approach he adopted, he

found that SCL could enhance his students’ interests and motivations to engage in the learning activities.

In addition, he also organised knowledge sharing sessions at the faculty level to promote OBE and SCL

to the management team as well as to his fellow colleagues. Based on his genuine interest and

commitment towards the project, we believe that he has the charisma to be a trainer and champion in

OBE and SCL.

Mohammad Anwer Anwer scored 53/56 for the assessment during the interview session. He was able

to explain in detail his understanding of the concepts and theories related to OBE and SCL that he had

developed throughout the courses he attended. He also informed that he was able to overcome his

misconceptions about OBE and SCL through direct consultations with the facilitators. Despite the

challenges faced while trying to implement SCL for his classes (for example, having to deal with the

resistance from his students who were complacent with the traditional approach), he managed to engage

the students through active learning activities. In addition, he was proactive enough to initiate a one-

week training session to his colleagues at his faculty, during which he shared his knowledge of OBE

13 | P a g e

and SCL to the others. Based on this strong commitment towards the ideas of promoting OBE and SCL

to his institution, we believe that he has the potential to be a trainer and champion in OBE and SCL.

Zarghoon Tareen scored 53/56 for the assessment during the interview session. He has a clear vision

and mission on how to implement OBE and SCL based on his understandings towards the concepts and

theories. He had made the initiative to practice what he had learned by practically implementing SCL

continue to apply active learning in his classes. Being a medical doctor with the newly discovered

knowledge of OBE and SCL, he has shown the motivation to bring about change to medical education

in for his classes. Based on the positive feedback he received from his students, he was confident to his

university. We believe that he has the potential to be a trainer and champion in OBE and SCL.

Mohammad Sharif Hasanzoy scored 53 marks for the oral interview. During the interview, he seems

to have misunderstanding about theories of learning in which he perceives it as the theories related to

OBE. OBE is an education system which based on various theories underpinning it. He got 2 marks

out of 5 for his understanding of learning theories. From his teaching portfolio, it can be exemplified

that he understands the importance of OBE and its relation to constructive alignment. During the

interview, he was able to give examples of his teaching practice of using SCL and AL in his class. It is

just that prior attending workshop in UTM, he does not emphasise the importance of assessment as a

part of his constructive alignment and could not understand its relation to OBE. However, in his

teaching portfolio, he realises that assessment is a part of constructive alignment and importance in

ensuring the success of OBE for his program. As a trainer, it is suggested that he should partner with

other champion in conducting the training.

Toufiq Sarwarzada scored 52/56. From his teaching portfolio, he lamented to be confused with OBE

specifically on the differences of PEO and PO. He highlighted that his university never conducted

tracer study on its graduates and therefore, OBE is considered as something new for improvement in

his university. During the interview, he was able to reflect on his own teaching practice in which he

applied SCL and AL in his class. Even though he is not familiar with some of the learning theories and

concepts such as taxonomy (as a guidance for preparing learning outcomes), he is able to reflect on the

differences of his understanding after attending the workshop in UTM on relevant concepts such as

CQI, learning taxonomy etc. However, he is unsure about his competency and confidence in training

others in which he did not indicate his plan on training others on OBE and SCL in either during

interview or teaching portfolio. It is suggested that he should be paired with other champion in

conducting the training.

Nommanudien Naibkhil scored 51. He did not submit his teaching portfolio but when asked about his

teaching practice using SCL and AL, he was able to answer the related questions well. He is a Deputy

Dean (Pharmacy) in Kabul University and thus, he might be preoccupied with administration tasks and

not able to give full commitment in conducting the training of OBE, SCL and AL. He shows confidence

in sharing his experience of conducting his class using SCL and AL. He explained that his students

enjoy the new strategies used such as Think-Pair-Share and Guided Reading and the students gave

positive reaction towards it. However, due to lack of printed evidence (portfolio), it is quite difficult to

ascertain to what extend he has understood OBE, SCL and AL especially on the writing up of the

learning objectives part. From the interview, he explained his experience implementing SCL and AL

in his classes enthusiastically. It is suggested that he should be paired with other champion in

conducting the training.

Sayed Javid Azimi scored 50. He studied in Malaysia for his postgraduate studies. In his teaching

portfolio, he gave an example of his course outline. The learning outcomes in his course outline have

similar features like learning outcomes in UTM which follows OBE. In this case, he has a good

template of course outline with learning outcomes, learning activities and assessment which in line with

14 | P a g e

OBE format which he can use and share with others during training. He is confident to explain his

experience conducting classes using SCL and AL. He is able to give example of using Jigsaw in his

class which consist of 120 students. He divided his students into 24 groups in which each group will

have 5 members. It seems that he did practice SCL and AL after the workshop in Kabul. Even though

he is young, with his enthusiasm, confidence and learning experiences in Malaysia, he can be a good

trainer to convince others in using OBE, SCL and AL. We suggest that he can become a mentor and

paired with other champion in conducting the training.

Ali Jan Adil scored 51. He did not gave examples of learning outcomes and plan for learning activities

in his class but during the interview, he is able to explain learning activities that he had done in his class

using SCL and AL. He has enthusiastic to share with others about his experience of using SCL and AL

in his teaching practice. He has given workshop relating to OBE, SCL and AL but due to lack of

theoretical and conceptual knowledge, he faced difficulty to provide satisfactory answers to the

questions asked by the participants of the workshop. He is able to reflectively describe the changes of

his understanding about OBE, SCL and AL after coming to UTM. It seems that he has better

understanding about SCL and AL in practice, but not so much about OBE, SCL and AL in theory. With

support and mentoring with other champion, he can improve his theoretical understanding of OBE, SCL

and AL. It is suggested that he should be paired with other champion in conducting the training.

Zabihullah Alimyar scored 50. He is able to explain the alignment of his course (learning objectives)

with class activities and assessment and this can also be exemplified in his teaching portfolio. Even

though he only attended once of the training in Kabul, he took initiative to ask other champions about

the contents of the training, and thus, he was able to implement course alignment at the beginning of

the semester (implementing OBE as a new curriculum design). As someone who has experienced and

is holding administration post at university level (ex-HoD, Dean and VC in Parwan University), he has

confidence in convincing others to apply OBE in their teaching practice. Even though he has

administration position, he is able to focus on implementing SCL and AL in his two classes. During

the interview, he was able to give examples of his own practice. In addition, he also assess his teaching

practice, he did reflection at the end of class and end of semester (for CQI). This regular practice of

reflection helps him to improvise his classroom activities based on the students’ responses and

performance. In overall, he has good understanding of OBE, SCL and AL, but since he holds position

at university level, he might not be able to give full commitment in conducting the training for other

lecturers in his respective institution. Therefore, it is suggested that he should be paired with other

champion in conducting the training.

Enayatullah Hamdard scored 49 marks during the assessment. He shows very positive attitude towards

change and is confident that he can train others on OBE and SCL. This can be seen in his portfolio that

he recommended many practical steps to bring changes to higher education in Afghanistan. He also

stated that he has been using SCL even before he joined the training and so he believed that teaching

must be student centred. Therefore, he believes that he can become a champion in OBE and SCL.

However, he needs to improve his understanding on OBE as he seemed a little confused about OBE

during the interview. OBE is not a part of SCL or SCL is not a part of OBE. OBE is a type of curriculum

while SCL is a type of teaching & learning approach. It is suggested that he should partner with other

champion to conduct the training.

Wafaurahman Wafa scored 49 marks for the oral assessment. He shows great enthusiasm to want to

teach others on OBE and SCL. He believes OBE and SCL are good for the higher education in

Afghanistan and wants to share them with his colleagues. He has adequate understanding on OBE but

not so on SCL, especially on CL. He could not explain CL appropriately. He provided some reflection

about his learning in the portfolio but it is not adequate, maybe due to language barrier. He is ready to

share OBE but he should learn more on SCL before he starts training others. It is suggested that he

should partner with other champion to conduct the training and mentoring will be also important for

him.

15 | P a g e

Khadem Hussain Saeedi scored 49 marks during the assessment. He has done some reflections on

himself and shows some understanding of OBE and SCL. However, he did not show high level

confident in the implementation of OBE and SCL in his own class. It is mentioned in the portfolio that

he needs to learn how to improve his own practices in the classroom which is a very good learning

experience for him. If he continued to improve his practice, he will be a good trainer and example for

others to follow. He needs to show more confidence in his own practice of OBE and SCL so that other

will follow him and he will be able to be a champion. He should partner with other champion if he

wanted to conduct training on OBE and SCL.

Hizbullah Rahmani scored 49 marks in the oral assessment. His portfolio mainly focused on self-

reflection and little on planning and becoming a champion in OBE and SCL. During the interview, he

showed more understanding towards OBE but less on SCL. He also mixed up OBE and SCL as the

same entities. He needs to clear up his understanding and be able to tell the difference between OBE

and SCL where OBE is curriculum and SCL is teaching and learning approach. However, he is

motivated to train others and bring change to the education system in Afghanistan. He is sure that he

will be able to change his colleagues in his university because the number is small. It is suggested that

he should partner with other champion to conduct the training.

Chaman Ali Hikmat scored 49. In his teaching portfolio, he did not provide examples of learning

outcomes from any one of his class or even in generic form (without specifying any programme).

However, from the interview session, he was able to give examples of what he has done for his class

activities such as group activity and able to describe the rubric that he used as scoring measure for his

reading class (he teaches English classes in a language centre: reading, speaking, writing and listening).

He explained his experience implementing SCL and AL in his classes enthusiastically. But when asked

about the challenges that he faced while implementing SCL and AL, he stated that the challenges that

he faced is not related to his teaching practice, but rather in convincing senior colleagues on the OBE,

SCL and AL. As a Dean of Faculty (Language Centre), he feels a bit frustrated when some colleagues

refuse to implement OBE, SCL and AL. As a dean, other than administration tasks, he has a quite

heavy teaching workload. He explained that he has 18 classes (2 hours per week per class). He has

class in the evening (night). With such workload, he might not be able to focus on the training. It is

suggested that he should be paired with other champion in conducting the training.

Bashir Ahmad Jawaid scored 49. His portfolio does not contain any information about examples of

learning objectives or learning activities using SCL and AL. However, he is able to reflect his past

teaching practice with his future teaching practice in which he will implement OBE, SCL and AL. From

the interview, he described the facilities that they have in his university. Even though he is teaching

civil engineering, yet there are limited engineering labs that can be used or fully equipped which have

to be shared with other engineering departments. During the interview, he showed more understanding

towards SCL, not much on OBE and AL. Specifically, he is struggling with the implementation of class

activities using AL approach in which he attributed it to the lack of facilities in his university. However,

with his reflective thinking skill that is exemplified in teaching portfolio writing, he can become a good

trainer and OBE, SCL and AL advocator. He might need mentoring support to become better trainer.

It is suggested that he should be paired with other champion in conducting the training.

Sayed Ahmad Mahboobi scored 47 marks in the oral assessment. His has implemented SCL in his own

class but faced many challenges. He needs some mentoring to improve his practice. He has also

conducted training at his university and he wants to train more lecturers on SCL and OBE. However,

he did not show in depth understanding of OBE during the interview. He needs to improve himself on

the understanding of OBE and implementation of SCL through mentoring. It is suggested that he should

partner with other champion to conduct the training.

Ahmad Javid Shakib scored 47 marks for the oral assessment. From his portfolio, it is cleared that he

has implemented SCL but mentoring is needed to improve his own practice. He also shows vague

16 | P a g e

understanding of SCL because it was very difficult for him to explain SCL. It is not sure if this was

because of language barrier or he actually has not completely mastered the concepts of SCL. However,

this can be improved by practice and mentoring. He needs to be paired with other champions to conduct

training.

Masaood Moahid scored 47. From this teaching portfolio, he is able to describe his teaching practice

using SCL and AL. He gave examples to describe AL activities that he used in his class. However,

during the interview he seems hesitant to explain in detailed about his experiences using SCL and AL

in his class. Perhaps, he was nervous during the interview but his hesitation might relate to his

confidence of sharing his experience with others. With practice and time, he can improve his confidence

especially in sharing his experiences with others in the training. During the interview session, he

highlighted one of the challenges that he faced which is to align the learning outcomes with learning

activities and assessment (OBE alignment). From the interview, it seems that he has practice some

learning activities of AL that he learnt from the workshops in Kabul, but he is still need support and

mentoring when it comes to OBE. As a trainer, it is suggested that he should partner with other

champion in conducting the training.

Hayatullah Jawad scored 43. He has enthusiasm in implementing OBE, SCL and AL and has

experienced in involving in curriculum development in his university, but he has limited theoretical

knowledge of OBE, SCL and AL because he did not able to attend the 2nd workshop conducted in Kabul.

However, he is very keen to learn about OBE, SCL and AL and took the initiatives to ask his fellow

champion from the same university, Dr Brishna Dawlaty about what he missed from the workshop.

Therefore, during the interview he was able to describe his teaching practice such as class activities that

he implemented in class. Since he is teaching pathology, he uses PBL (Problem-Based learning) in

which the students are given problems that they need to solve in groups. He also uses case-based

learning in which he gives students real cases in medical practices and students have to provide

explanation about the case based on its pathological aspects. He is able to give examples of AL that he

uses in his classes such as Think-Pair-Share and Bookend. His class is quite large (100-200 students)

but the students are divided into different groups during lab session and thus, he is able to apply PBL

or case-based learning. However, he also teaches (part-time) in another university (private). Therefore,

he might have difficulty to focus on the training. Since he did not attended the workshop in Kabul (2nd

workshop), he might need mentoring from other champion who attended the entire workshop. It is

suggested that he should be paired with other champion in conducting the training.

Spozhmay Oriya scored 43/56 for the assessment during the interview session. She said that after

attending the workshop in UTM, she becomes clearer and understand ‘what is OBE and SCL?’ She can

align all the three components in the constructive alignment. She has the positive attitude to change her

teaching approach to SCL. She has implemented a few SCL activities in one of her own classes and get

positive feedback from the students. She plans to train and share her experience with her colleagues in

the faculty, university and at the higher education level. We believe that she can be a good trainer and

champion on OBE and SCL. She also planned to write a paper to be published in the university

magazine.

Asadullah Tareen scored 40 marks during the assessment because he complained that he was not feeling

well and he did not prepare a complete portfolio. He only submitted a one page portfolio so not much

can be seen in his reflection hence the scored 10/16 in the reflection component and 1/4 in the quality

of portfolio. He showed appropriate understanding on OBE but not on SCL. He did not mention any

future planning for training other lecturers in Afghanistan or how to design his own SCL

implementation although he mentioned planning for OBE implementation for his own courses. It is

strongly suggested that Asadullah should undergo one more assessment because it is not sure the poor

performance during the oral assessment is due to his health problem.

17 | P a g e

Masoda Khairzada scored 38. She has 7 years of experience teaching in university. In general, she

has basic understanding and knowledge of OBE and SCL that she can use to implement in her own

teaching practice, but perhaps lack of examples which she can share with others. She is enthusiastic in

implementing SCL and AL in her class even though lacks of facilities and infrastructure such internet

connection such as e-learning and WIFI in his university. She raised her concern to keep in touch with

other fellow champions due to different geographical locations and internet connection. During the

interview, she claims that she is not confident yet to share her teaching experiences using OBE, SCL

and AL with fellow colleagues. She requested extra time to practice OBE, SCL and AL before giving

training to others. As a start, she can join training of OBE, SCL and AL by other champion to enhance

her understanding of OBE, SCL and AL. It is suggested that she can partner with other champion to

conduct the training after a year of practice and mentoring by other champions.

Mohammad Qasam Adil scored 37. From his teaching portfolio, it seems that he has a misconception

about SCL with critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy is about a pedagogy in which students take charge

towards what they want to learn which they perceive as important and in this case, the selection of

topics to be covered will be based on students’ conscious acts. Student centered learning (SCL) is a

pedagogical approach in which students actively engage in learning activities to enhance their

understanding. In this case, students become active learners, not passive receivers of information. His

understanding about OBE seems to be inconclusive. This can be exemplified during the interview in

which he was unable to explain how he planned his lesson (what are the learning outcomes, what kind

of class activities that he used and what kind of assessment that he used to measure that the learning

outcomes are met). A close examination of his teaching portfolio shows that he is unable to describe a

learning outcome which can be measurable. He used the word “know” and “understand” rather than

words that denotes measurable aspects such as “list”, “give examples”, “calculate”, “illustrate” etc. The

assessment that he stated in the teaching portfolio is also too generic such as “question and answer”

rather than stating specific assessment such as presentation, test, final examination or report. Therefore,

it is difficult to ascertain his proficiency in training others in OBE, SCL and AL. However, he seems

enthusiastic about improving his teaching practice from traditional or teacher centered learning to

student centered learning. He might need monitoring from other champion to improve his

understanding of OBE, SCL and AL before becoming champion. As a start, he can join training of

OBE, SCL and AL by other champion to enhance his understanding of OBE, SCL and AL. It is

suggested that he can partner with other champion to conduct the training after a year of practice and

mentoring by other champion.

18 | P a g e

Annex:

Working group during SCL 1 training

Working Groups reading a research paper on OBE-SCL

19 | P a g e

Group Photo with Vice Chancellor of UTM

Higher Education Development Project Representative Meeting with Vice Chancellor and

Faculty of UTM

university of technology malaysia (utm) · 3-4 nov 2016 faculty of education blended learning &...

Documents