Students' preferences and perceptions of teaching styles and learning styles in an esp context at a Malaysian Technical University.

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING STYLES AND LEARNING STYLES IN AN ESP CONTEXT AT A MALAYSIAN

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

LEE MEI PH’NG

THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA

BANGI 2014

PILIHAN DAN PERSEPSI GAYA PENGAJARAN DAN PEMBELAJARAN DALAM KONTEKS ESP DI SEBUAH UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA

LEE MEI PH’NG

TESIS YANG DIKEMUKAKAN UNTUK MEMPEROLEHI IJAZAH DOKTOR FALSAFAH

FAKULTI SAINS SOSIAL DAN KEMANUSIAAN UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA

BANGI 2014

iii

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work in this thesis is my own except for quotations and summaries which have been duly acknowledged.

24 APRIL 2014 LEE MEI PH’NG

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My heartfelt thanks to my supervisors Professor Dr. Thang Siew Ming and Associate Professor Dr. Radha M. K. Nambiar for their constant guidance and encouragement towards the completion of my PhD. My gratitude to the Ministry of Higher Education and Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for the scholarship and assistance. My special thanks to the management of Centre for Languages and Human Development (PBPI), my colleagues and the students who participated in this study. I would also like to thank my parents Mr Lee Seik Beng and Madam Yong Yee Kheng, brother Mr Lee Fook H’ng, Associate Professor Puan Sri Dato’ Dr Mary Lee, the Chan family, Miss Sylvia Pillay, the Chee family and Mr Thomas Chao, for their never-ending support and encouragement during this long journey.

v

ABSTRACT

This study aims to determine the match and mismatch between the learning styles preferences of UTeM engineering undergraduates and the teaching styles preferences of their Technical Communication course lecturers. The study first looked at the students’ learning styles according to their field of study, gender and ethnic background and the teaching styles of their Technical Communication course lecturers. This was achieved via the use of quantitative methods where 588 engineering undergraduates answered Felder’s Index of Learning Styles and 10 Technical Communication lecturers answered Grasha’s Teaching Style Survey. The study also looked at the extent the lecturers’ teaching styles matched and/or mismatched their learning styles preferences and the students’ reactions towards the cases of matching and mismatching. This part of the study involved qualitative methods namely student interviews and student learning journals. The quantitative data revealed general patterns of the students’ learning styles preferences and their lecturers’ teaching styles preferences. The students were generally inclined towards having balanced preferences for all the learning styles although they displayed a marked preference for the visual learning style. Their learning styles preferences were not influenced by their field of study, gender or ethnic background. Their lecturers generally have preference for the facilitator teaching style. The qualitative data revealed further details about the match and mismatch. The findings revealed that the lecturers’ teaching styles generally matched most of the students’ learning styles. More interestingly, it revealed that the students were willing to accommodate their lecturers’ teaching styles when mismatches occurred. This study proposes that the teaching and learning process in the Technical Communication classroom can be enhanced with the incorporation of teaching strategies that take into account the students’ learning styles preferences, their lecturers’ teaching styles preferences and the students’ general willingness to accommodate to their lecturers’ teaching styles in the case of mismatch. The implications of the findings would be useful to lecturers, curriculum and material developers who intend to adopt the concept of learning styles and teaching styles into the teaching and learning process.

vi

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengenalpasti sama ada gaya pembelajaran pelajar jurusan kejuruteraan UTeM adalah sepadan atau tidak sepadan dengan gaya pengajaran pensyarah kursus Komunikasi Teknikal mereka. Kajian ini mengenalpasti gaya pembelajaran pelajar mengikut bidang pengajian, jantina dan latar belakang etnik mereka serta gaya pengajaran pensyarah kursus Komunikasi Teknikal mereka. Kaedah kuantitatif telah digunakan dan 588 pelajar menjawab Indeks Gaya Pembelajaran (ILS) Felder manakala 10 pensyarah menjawab Inventori Gaya Pengajaran (TSS) Grasha. Kajian ini juga melihat sejauh manakah gaya pengajaran pensyarah sepadan atau tidak sepadan dengan gaya pembelajaran pelajar dan persepsi pelajar terhadap situasi berkenaan. Bahagian kajian ini melibatkan kaedah kualitatif iaitu temubual pelajar dan jurnal pembelajaran pelajar. Data kuantitatif menunjukkan kecenderungan gaya pembelajaran pelajar dan gaya pengajaran pensyarah mereka. Para pelajar mempunyai kecenderungan untuk memilih gaya pembelajaran yang seimbang secara amnya walaupun mereka mempunyai kecendurangan yang tinggi untuk memilih gaya pembelajaran visual. Dapatan kajian juga menunjukkan gaya pembelajaran pelajar tidak dipengaruhi oleh bidang pengajian, jantina atau latar belakang etnik mereka. Pensyarah mereka pula mempunyai kecendurangan memilih gaya pengajaran fasilitator. Dapatan kualitatif menunjukkan ciri-ciri tambahan apabila gaya pengajaran pensyarah telah sepadan dan tidak sepadan dengan gaya pembelajaran para pelajar. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa gaya pengajaran pensyarah sepadan dengan kebanyakan gaya pembelajaran pelajar. Lebih menarik lagi ia menunjukkan pelajar sanggup mengakomodasi cara pengajaran pensyarah apabila berlaku ketidaksepadanan. Kajian ini mencadangkan bahawa proses pengajaran-pembelajaran di dalam kelas Komunikasi Teknikal boleh dipertingkatkan lagi dengan penggunaan strategi pengajaran yang mengambil kira gaya pengajaran pelajar, gaya pengajaran pensyarah dan kewujudan akomodasi terhadap gaya pengajaran pensyarah mereka. Implikasi kajian ini boleh membantu pensyarah, pembentuk kurikulum dan bahan pengajaran yang bercadang untuk memasukkan konsep gaya pembelajaran dan gaya pengajaran ke dalam proses pengajaran dan pembelajaran.

vii

CONTENTS

Page

DECLARATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Engineering Education 2

1.3 Engineering Education in Malaysia 6

1.4 Outcome Based Education 8

1.5 English for Specific Purposes 12

1.6 Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) 15

1.7 Technical Communication Subjects in UTeM 17

1.8 Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in Higher Education

18

1.9 Statement of the Problem 21

1.10 Conceptual Framework 26

1.11 Objectives of The Study 30

1.12 Research Questions 30

1.13 Overview of the Theoretical Framework 30

1.14 Significance of the Study 32

1.15 Definition of Terms 33

1.16 Limitations 34

viii

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 36

2.2 Approaches to Learning 36

2.2.1 Behaviourism 2.2.2 Humanism 2.2.3 Cognitivism 2.2.4 Constructivism

37 38 40 44

2.3 Theoretical Framework 50

2.4 Teaching and Learning 53

2.5 Learning Styles 56

2.5.1 Learning styles models 2.5.2 Index of Learning Styles

2.5.3 Studies on learning styles according to field of study

2.5.4 Studies on learning styles according to gender

58 67 68 75

2.6 Teaching Styles 76

2.6.1 Canfield Instructional Model

2.6.2 Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles 2.6.3 Grasha’s Teaching Styles Model

2.6.4 Grasha-Riechmann Teaching Style Survey (TSS)

2.6.5 Studies on teaching styles

78 80 82 88 88 2.7 Matching and Mismatching of Learning Styles and

Teaching Styles

93

2.8 Conclusion 98

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 99

3.2 Research Design 99

3.3 Sampling and Methodology 3.3.1 Site

3.3.2 Sample

103 103 104

3.4 Research Instruments 107

3.4.1 Index of Learning Styles (ILS) 3.4.2 Teaching Style Survey (TSS)

107 110

ix

3.4.3 Student interviews 3.4.4 Student learning journal

111 116

3.5 Data Collection Procedures 118

3.5.1 Index of Learning Styles 3.5.2 Teaching Style Survey 3.5.3 Student interviews 3.5.4 Student learning journal

118 119 119 121

3.6 Data Analysis 121

3.6.1 Index of Learning Styles (ILS) 3.6.2 Teaching Style Survey (TSS) 3.6.3 Qualitative data

3.6.4 Triangulation of data

121 126 127 128

3.7 Pilot Study

3.7.1 Index of Learning Styles 3.7.2 Student interviews 3.7.3 Student learning journal 3.7.4 Summary of pilot study

130 131 131 132 133

3.8 Conclusion 133

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction 134

4.2 Students’ Learning Styles Preferences 135

4.2.1 Quantitative findings 135

4.3 Lecturers’ Teaching Styles Preferences 139 4.4 Students’ Perceptions of Their Technical

Communication Lecturers’ Teaching Styles

4.4.1 Students’ perceptions of Madam A’s teaching styles

4.4.2 Students’ perceptions of Madam B’s teaching styles

140 143 156

4.5 Discussion 170

x

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Introduction 179

5.2 Summary of Main Findings 180

5.3 Implications 186

5.4

5.5

Proposed Teaching Strategies

5.4.1 Creation of sufficient interaction 5.4.2 Portrayal of good personal qualities

5.4.3 Letting students take charge of their learning 5.4.4 Acknowledging the usefulness of examples 5.4.5 Inclusion of detailed examples

5.4.6 Assignment of exercises

Recommendations for Future Research

188 189 191 192 194 195 196 199

5.6 Conclusion 201

REFERENCES 203

APPENDIX

A Soft Skills Identified by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education

223

B Diploma and Bachelor programs in UTeM 227

C Index of Learning Styles 228

D Index of Learning Styles Scoring Sheet 233

E Index of Learning Styles Report Form 234

F Teaching Styles Survey 235

G Teaching Styles Survey Scoring Sheet 239

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page

1.1 Characteristics of engineering graduates (program accreditation)

4 1.2 Characteristics of engineering graduates (program outcome) 9

2.1 Three approaches to learning 37

2.2 Factors that affect learning 55

2.3 Categorisation of learning styles definitions 57

2.4 Comparison with other learning styles models 58

2.5 Features of Learning styles 62

2.6 Preferences of the Myers-Briggs Personality Types 64 2.7 Categorization of learners (Felder and Silverman Model) 67 2.8 Studies on conducted on learning styles (students’ field of

study)

74 2.9 Instructional Scales on Cansfield Instructional Style Inventory 79

2.10 Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles 81

2.11 Grasha’s Five Teaching Styles 83

2.12 Studies conducted on various aspects of teaching styles 92

3.1 Distribution of questions in ILS 108

3.2 Adaptation to ILS 109

3.3 Distribution of questions in TSS 111

3.4 Respondents for student interviews 120

3.5 Labelling category for data analysis of LS preferences 122 3.6 Possible combinations of scores and labelling for the

visual-verbal dimension

123 3.7 Sample calculation of ILS (Strength of preferences) 125

3.8 Range of scores for TSS 127

3.9 Summary of research objectives, research questions and research instruments

130

3.10 Revised student interview questions 132

4.1 General learning styles preferences of UTeM students (% count)

136 4.2 Strength of preferences of UTeM students (mean scores) 136 4.3 Learning styles preferences of UTeM students: according to

field of study (% count)

137 4.4 Strength of preferences according to field of study 137 4.5 Learning styles preferences of UTeM students: according to

gender (% count)

138

4.6 Strength preferences according to gender 138

4.7 Learning styles of UTeM students: according to ethnic background (% count)

139 4.8 Strength of preferences of according to ethnic background 139 4.9 Lecturers’ teaching styles preferences 140 4.10 Lecturers’ formal authority teaching style (characteristics) 141 4.11 Lecturers’ facilitator teaching style (characteristics) 142 4.12 Lecturers’ expert teaching style (characteristics) 143

xii

4.13 Madam A’s students’ learning styles preferences 144 4.14 Madam A’s Formal Authority Teaching Style 147

4.15 Madam A’s Facilitator Teaching Style 153

4.16 Madam A’s Expert Teaching Style 156

4.17 Madam B’s students’ learning styles preferences 157

4.18 Madam B’s Facilitator Teaching Style 161

4.19 Madam B’s Expert Teaching Style 167

4.20 Madam B’s Formal Authority Teaching Style 170

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page

1.1 Conceptual Framework 28

2.1 Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model (ELM) 59 2.2 Instructional activities which support every dimension of the

learning cycle

62

2.3 Experiential Learning Sequence 63

2.4 The Cycle of Learning Styles 64

3.1 Research Design 102

3.2 Sample question (ILS) 109

3.3 Scoring Sheet (ILS) 110

3.4 Sample question (TSS) 111

3.5 Sample learning journal entry 117

3.6 Scoring key (TSS) 126

3.7 Sample transcription (Student interviews) 128

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology BEM Board of Engineers Malaysia

EAC Engineering Accreditation Council ESL English as a Second Language ESP English for Specific Purposes

EST English for Science and Technology FKE Faculty of Electrical Engineering

FKEKK Faculty of Electronics and Computer Engineering FKM Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

FKP Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering

FPTT Faculty of Technology Management and Technopreneurship FTK Faculty of Engineering Technology

FTMK Faculty of Information and Communication Technology IEM Institute of Engineers Malaysia

ILS Index of Learning Styles OBE Outcome-based Education

PBPI Centre for Languages and Human Development LS Learning Styles

LSI Learning Style Inventory

TS Teaching Styles

TSS Grasha-Riechmann Teaching Style Survey UTeM Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The education industry in Malaysia is rapidly booming with an increasing number of institutions of higher learning. These institutions can be divided into two main categories namely public higher education institutions and private higher education institutions. As of 2010, there are about 20 public higher institutions of learning and about 476 private higher institutions of learning in Malaysia (Ministry of Higher Education 2011). Public higher institutions are institutions like Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka and Universiti Putra Malaysia, just to name a few. Private higher education institutions, on the other hand, can be further divided into private institutions with university status (for example Wawasan Open University), institutions with university status (branches of foreign universities, for example Monash University Malaysia), institutions with college university status and institutions without university status (Ministry of Higher Education 2011).

Lee (2002) in her article acknowledged that the wave of globalization has resulted in the need for institutions of learning to have curriculum reforms and one of the issues to be dealt with is the importance of meeting the needs of the students (in school). This is echoed by Kaur and Ganapathy (2008) who voiced out the importance of improving the quality of teaching and learning to improve the quality of graduates. The current wave of globalization means that employers’ needs and their demands on their employees may change. Thus, institutions of higher learning are faced with the

2

challenging and uphill task of ensuring the future workforce meet the constantly changing demands of the industry. In an effort to produce high quality graduates in all disciplines, one of the suggestions made by Mohd Salleh Mohd Yasin (2003) is for a change in the format of university teaching. Emphasis should also be given to meeting the learning needs of the student population which is growing increasingly varied. We should pay attention to the way the students are taught to ensure that they are effectively benefitting from the teaching and learning process. Understanding the way an individual learns is vital towards understanding learning and improving student learning (Hickcox 1995; Robotham 1999; Nor Azan, Halimah and Shahrul Azman 2002) and the findings from learning styles can be integrated into course design and delivery (Wooldridge 1995).

Before we look in detail into the kind of engineering programs offered at Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), which is related to the context of the current study), it is firstly necessary to have an overview of the global trend in engineering education.

1.2 ENGINEERING EDUCATION

The world of engineering education in the early 2000 witnessed the introduction of two criteria namely the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology’s (ABET) Engineering Criteria 2000 and the Engineering Programme Accreditation Manual 2007 that outline several criteria engineering graduates should have and both highlighted the importance of communication skills.

ABET was formerly known as the Engineer’s Council for Professional Development. It is an organization where members are from the engineering and engineering related fields. One of its core missions is to accredit educational programmes (Kemper and Saunders 2001; Nor, Rajab and Ismail 2008) and promote quality and innovation in education. According to the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) (2012), one of the benefits of accrediting engineering programmes would be as guarantee to prospective students they will be able to enter the

3

engineering profession after following the university’s engineering programme. The criteria listed in the manual cover both hard skills and soft skills. The quote below by Career Opportunities News (2002) as quoted in Aida Suraya (2008) highlights the importance of these skills:

“A soft skill refers to the cluster of personality traits, social graces, facility with language, personal habits, friendliness and optimism that mark each of us to varying degrees. Persons who rank high in this cluster, with good soft skills, are generally the people that most employers want to hire. Soft skills complement hard skills, which are the technical requirements of a job. The idea of course, is someone strong in both job and interpersonal skills, but as one employer put it in a recent report, Hard Work and Soft Skills, “Don’t worry so much about the technical skills. We need you to teach them how to show up on time, how to work in teams, and how to take supervision”.

The ABET Engineering Criteria (2000) outlined that engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have eleven qualities and two of the qualities are related to the graduates’ abilities to communicate effectively and their abilities to recognise and engage in lifelong learning. On a similar vein, the Engineering Council of Malaysia, Board of Engineers Malaysia (2007), in their Engineering Programme Accreditation Manual 2007 outlined that every engineering student is expected to have certain qualities by the time they graduate. These are known as the programme outcomes. Two of the ten outcomes refer to the graduates’ abilities to communicate effectively and to be involved in lifelong learning and having the ability to do so.

Table 1.1 shows a comparison of both the criteria set in the ABET Engineering Criteria (2000) and the Engineering Council of Malaysia, Board of Engineers Malaysia’s Accreditation Manual (2007). The comparison clearly reflects the national and international emphasis given on the ability of the graduate engineers to communicate effectively bedsides emphasizing on the importance of lifelong learning. The emphasis on communication skills parallels an earlier statement by Dodrige (1999) who said “employers focus increasingly on different methods of assessment of the suitability of a potential employee.” (p. 13a9-10). He added that other attributes

4

such as the candidates’ personal qualities, ability to communicate and work in a team are being given importance by employers.

Table 1.1 Characteristics of engineering graduates (program accreditation) ABET Criteria (2000) The Engineering Council of Malaysia,

(Board of Engineers Malaysia Accreditation Manual 2007) a) an ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and

engineering

b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs

d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

g) an ability to communicate effectively h) the broad education necessary to

understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context

i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning j) a knowledge of contemporary issues k) an ability to use the techniques,

skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

a) ability to acquire and apply knowledge of science and engineering fundamentals; b) acquired in-depth technical

competence in a specific engineering discipline

c) ability to undertake problem identification, formulation and solution

d) ability to utilise systems approach to design and evaluate operational performance;

e) understanding of the principles of design for sustainable development; f) understanding of professional and

ethical responsibilities and commitment to them;

g) ability to communicate effectively, not only with engineers but also with the community at large;

h) ability to function effectively as an individual and in a group with the capacity to be a leader or manager ; i) understanding of the social, cultural,

global and environmental responsibilities of a professional engineer; and

j) recognising the need to undertake life-long learning, and

possessing/acquiring the capacity to do so.

5

There are three main accords which are used as points of references for the mutual recognition of engineering programmes. The Washington Accord, for example, is for professional engineering courses, while the Sydney Accord is for engineering technology courses. The Dublin Accord, on the other hand, is for engineering technician programmes. These accords do not cover postgraduate engineering programmes Basri, Che Man, Wan Badarruzzaman and Nor (2004). As highlighted by International Engineering Alliance (2012),

“…[these are] three multi-lateral agreements between groups of jurisdictional agencies responsible for accreditation or recognition of tertiary-level engineering qualifications within their jurisdictions who have chosen to work collectively to assist the mobility of engineering practitioners (i.e. professional engineers, engineering technologists and engineering technicians) holding suitable qualifications. Membership (called being a signatory) is voluntary, but the signatories are committed to development and recognition of good practice in engineering education. The activities of the Accord signatories (for example in developing exemplars of the graduates’ profiles from certain types of qualification) are intended to assist growing globalisation of mutual recognition of engineering qualifications” (p. 1).

Basri et al. (2004) added that “the Washington Accord is a multinational agreement which recognizes the substantial equivalency of engineering degree programmes accredited by the responsible bodies in each of the current signatory countries. The two most important elements of the agreement are that it:

 recommends that graduates of accredited programmes be mutually recognized as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering in any member country, and

 establish that graduates of programmes accredited by the accreditation organisation of each member nation are prepared to practice engineering at the entry level (p. 64).

6

Having looked at the global scenario of engineering education, section 1.3 below provides an overview of the engineering education scenario in Malaysia.

1.3 ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

On the Malaysian scene, most engineering programmes in Malaysia are now three-years long. A proposal to shorten the programme duration was made in 1996 by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (Zaiton, Norihan and Nurmala 2009). Engineering students take subjects like languages, Islamic studies, moral education and entrepreneurship besides core subjects and basic courses such as mathematics, engineering sciences and computer application. One of the main emphasis of engineering education in Malaysia is the emphasis placed on both technical skills and soft skills (Zaiton, Kamarul, Md. Soufhwee, Haeryip and Mohd Yuhazri 2011; Nor et al. 2008).

In line with the global trend of emphasizing hard skills and soft skills, the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia identified seven soft skills which should be demonstrated by higher education students and graduates. The skills are:

 communication skills (CS);

 critical thinking and problem-solving skills (CTPS);  teamwork skills (TS);

 lifelong learning and information management (LL);  entrepreneurial skill (ES);

 professional ethics and moral (EM); and  leadership skills (LS).

In the case of the Technical Communication subjects, the identified soft skills are CS, CTPS and LL. A complete list of the soft skills and their corresponding level and description is presented in Appendix A.

7

These engineering programmes are monitored and accredited by the EAC. The Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) formed the EAC and the Institute of Engineers Malaysia (IEM), Accreditation Board of Malaysia, the Public Services Department of Malaysia, the Malaysian Council of Engineering Deans and several members appointed by the President of the BEM from among industry practitioners provide members to the EAC. BEM is formed by the government and has legal responsibility for the registration and regulation of the engineering profession in Malaysia.

The IEM serves as an advisor to the professional engineering associations in the country (Ismail and Puteh 2008). The EAC (2012) explained that accreditation of engineering programmes in Malaysia is conducted “to ensure that graduates of the accredited engineering programmes satisfy the minimum academic requirements for registration as a graduate engineer with BEM and for admission to graduate membership of IEM” (p.1). A current list of the accredited engineering programmes in Malaysia can be obtained from the official website of the BEM.

One of the requirements for the Malaysian engineering programmes to be accredited includes the application of outcome-based education (OBE) during the teaching and learning process. This also led to Malaysia becoming a full signatory member of a multinational agreement in 2009 for the mutual recognition of engineering bachelor degree programmes which is known as the Washington Accord (Zaiton et al. 2009). An overview of outcome-based education is provided in section 1.4.

In relation to the context of the current study, the emphasis given to the inclusion of soft skills in engineering programmes highlights the importance of the Technical Communication subjects in UTeM which were designed to enhance students’ oral and written communication skills. This in turn points towards the necessity of ensuring students have meaningful learning experiences in the Technical Communication classrooms. As highlighted by the EAC (2012), engineering graduates should be able to “communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as being able

8

to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions” (p.3).

Thus, it points towards the importance of ensuring students have a meaningful learning experience in the Technical Communication classrooms. The current study agrees with the EAC (2012) that there should be variety in terms of the teaching and learning (delivery) modes and that these teaching and learning modes should allow students to be responsible for their learning towards preparing them for lifelong learning. While there should be variety in the teaching and learning methods used in the classroom, it is suggested that the selection of the teaching and learning methods should take into account of the students’ learning styles preferences as it has been identified as one of the factors that affects students’ learning (Srisethanil and Baker 1995; Cassidy and Eachus 2000; Dealtry 2004; Forest 2007; Zaiton et al. 2011).

As mentioned earlier in this section, outcome based education (OBE) is central to engineering education. The following section provides an overview of this approach.

1.4 OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION

According to the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) (2012), outcome based education (OBE) is “an approach that focuses on outcomes, i.e. student achievement that is measurable, proven and can be improved” (p.vi). It was adopted into engineering programmes in Malaysia in order for them to be accredited by the EAC (Nor et al. 2008) in line with one of the requirements for Malaysia to become a full signatory member of the Washington Accord (Sher 2009 as quoted in Zaiton et al. 2009).

As a focus university, UTeM adopts OBE in the subjects and the outcome for each subject is based on Bloom’s Taxonomy Level (Zaiton et al. 2011). Every offered programme has its own program outcomes. Programme Outcomes are statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to perform or attain by the

9

time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviour that students acquire through the programme (EAC 2012, p. 2-3). The EAC outlined the following programme outcomes for engineering programmes:

Table 1.2 Characteristics of engineering graduates (program outcome) Programme

Outcome (PO)

Area Description

PO1 Engineering Knowledge Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering specialisation to the solution of complex engineering problems;

PO2 Problem Analysis Identify, formulate, research literature and analyse complex engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering sciences; PO3 Design/Development of

Solutions

Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations; PO4 Investigation Conduct investigation into complex

problems using research based knowledge and research methods including design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions;

PO5 Modern Tool Usage Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering and IT tools, including

10

…continued

prediction and modelling, to complex engineering activities, with an understanding of the limitations; PO6 The Engineer and

Society

Apply reasoning informed by contextual knowledge to assess societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to professional engineering practice; PO7 Environment and

Sustainability

Understand the impact of professional engineering solutions in societal and environmental contexts and demonstrate knowledge of and need for sustainable development;

PO8 Ethics Apply ethical principles and commit

to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of engineering practice;

PO9 Communication Communicate effectively on

complex engineering activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions;

PO10 Individual and Team Work

Function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary settings;

PO11 Life Long Learning Recognise the need for, and have the preparation and ability to engage in independent and life-long learning in the broadest context of technological change.

There are three main accords which are used as points of references for the mutual recognition of engineering programmes. The Washington Accord, for example, is for professional engineering courses, while the Sydney Accord is for engineering technology courses. The Dublin Accord, on the other hand, is for engineering technician programmes. These accords do not cover postgraduate engineering programmes Basri, Che Man, Wan Badarruzzaman and Nor (2004). As highlighted by International Engineering Alliance (2012),

“…[these are] three multi-lateral agreements between groups of jurisdictional agencies responsible for accreditation or recognition of tertiary-level engineering qualifications within their jurisdictions who have chosen to work collectively to assist the mobility of engineering practitioners (i.e. professional engineers, engineering technologists and engineering technicians) holding suitable qualifications. Membership (called being a signatory) is voluntary, but the signatories are committed to development and recognition of good practice in engineering education. The activities of the Accord signatories (for example in developing exemplars of the graduates’ profiles from certain types of qualification) are intended to assist growing globalisation of mutual recognition of engineering qualifications” (p. 1).

Basri et al. (2004) added that “the Washington Accord is a multinational agreement which recognizes the substantial equivalency of engineering degree programmes accredited by the responsible bodies in each of the current signatory countries. The two most important elements of the agreement are that it:

 recommends that graduates of accredited programmes be mutually recognized as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering in any member country, and

 establish that graduates of programmes accredited by the accreditation organisation of each member nation are prepared to practice engineering at the entry level (p. 64).

Having looked at the global scenario of engineering education, section 1.3 below provides an overview of the engineering education scenario in Malaysia.

1.3 ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

On the Malaysian scene, most engineering programmes in Malaysia are now three-years long. A proposal to shorten the programme duration was made in 1996 by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (Zaiton, Norihan and Nurmala 2009). Engineering students take subjects like languages, Islamic studies, moral education and entrepreneurship besides core subjects and basic courses such as mathematics, engineering sciences and computer application. One of the main emphasis of engineering education in Malaysia is the emphasis placed on both technical skills and soft skills (Zaiton, Kamarul, Md. Soufhwee, Haeryip and Mohd Yuhazri 2011; Nor et al. 2008).

In line with the global trend of emphasizing hard skills and soft skills, the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia identified seven soft skills which should be demonstrated by higher education students and graduates. The skills are:

 communication skills (CS);

 critical thinking and problem-solving skills (CTPS);  teamwork skills (TS);

 lifelong learning and information management (LL);  entrepreneurial skill (ES);

 professional ethics and moral (EM); and  leadership skills (LS).

In the case of the Technical Communication subjects, the identified soft skills are CS, CTPS and LL. A complete list of the soft skills and their corresponding level and description is presented in Appendix A.

These engineering programmes are monitored and accredited by the EAC. The Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) formed the EAC and the Institute of Engineers Malaysia (IEM), Accreditation Board of Malaysia, the Public Services Department of Malaysia, the Malaysian Council of Engineering Deans and several members appointed by the President of the BEM from among industry practitioners provide members to the EAC. BEM is formed by the government and has legal responsibility for the registration and regulation of the engineering profession in Malaysia.

The IEM serves as an advisor to the professional engineering associations in the country (Ismail and Puteh 2008). The EAC (2012) explained that accreditation of engineering programmes in Malaysia is conducted “to ensure that graduates of the accredited engineering programmes satisfy the minimum academic requirements for registration as a graduate engineer with BEM and for admission to graduate membership of IEM” (p.1). A current list of the accredited engineering programmes in Malaysia can be obtained from the official website of the BEM.

One of the requirements for the Malaysian engineering programmes to be accredited includes the application of outcome-based education (OBE) during the teaching and learning process. This also led to Malaysia becoming a full signatory member of a multinational agreement in 2009 for the mutual recognition of engineering bachelor degree programmes which is known as the Washington Accord (Zaiton et al. 2009). An overview of outcome-based education is provided in section 1.4.

In relation to the context of the current study, the emphasis given to the inclusion of soft skills in engineering programmes highlights the importance of the Technical Communication subjects in UTeM which were designed to enhance students’ oral and written communication skills. This in turn points towards the necessity of ensuring students have meaningful learning experiences in the Technical Communication classrooms. As highlighted by the EAC (2012), engineering graduates should be able to “communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as being able

to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions” (p.3).

Thus, it points towards the importance of ensuring students have a meaningful learning experience in the Technical Communication classrooms. The current study agrees with the EAC (2012) that there should be variety in terms of the teaching and learning (delivery) modes and that these teaching and learning modes should allow students to be responsible for their learning towards preparing them for lifelong learning. While there should be variety in the teaching and learning methods used in the classroom, it is suggested that the selection of the teaching and learning methods should take into account of the students’ learning styles preferences as it has been identified as one of the factors that affects students’ learning (Srisethanil and Baker 1995; Cassidy and Eachus 2000; Dealtry 2004; Forest 2007; Zaiton et al. 2011).

As mentioned earlier in this section, outcome based education (OBE) is central to engineering education. The following section provides an overview of this approach.

1.4 OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION

According to the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) (2012), outcome based education (OBE) is “an approach that focuses on outcomes, i.e. student achievement that is measurable, proven and can be improved” (p.vi). It was adopted into engineering programmes in Malaysia in order for them to be accredited by the EAC (Nor et al. 2008) in line with one of the requirements for Malaysia to become a full signatory member of the Washington Accord (Sher 2009 as quoted in Zaiton et al. 2009).

As a focus university, UTeM adopts OBE in the subjects and the outcome for each subject is based on Bloom’s Taxonomy Level (Zaiton et al. 2011). Every offered programme has its own program outcomes. Programme Outcomes are statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to perform or attain by the

time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviour that students acquire through the programme (EAC 2012, p. 2-3). The EAC outlined the following programme outcomes for engineering programmes:

Table 1.2 Characteristics of engineering graduates (program outcome) Programme

Outcome (PO)

Area Description

PO1 Engineering Knowledge Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering specialisation to the solution of complex engineering problems;

PO2 Problem Analysis Identify, formulate, research literature and analyse complex engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering sciences; PO3 Design/Development of

Solutions

Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations; PO4 Investigation Conduct investigation into complex

problems using research based knowledge and research methods including design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions;

PO5 Modern Tool Usage Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering and IT tools, including

…continued

prediction and modelling, to complex engineering activities, with an understanding of the limitations; PO6 The Engineer and

Society

Apply reasoning informed by contextual knowledge to assess societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to professional engineering practice; PO7 Environment and

Sustainability

Understand the impact of professional engineering solutions in societal and environmental contexts and demonstrate knowledge of and need for sustainable development;

PO8 Ethics Apply ethical principles and commit

to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of engineering practice;

PO9 Communication Communicate effectively on

complex engineering activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions;

PO10 Individual and Team Work

Function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary settings;

PO11 Life Long Learning Recognise the need for, and have the preparation and ability to engage in independent and life-long learning in the broadest context of technological change.