Click here to load reader
Upload
duongdiep
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
Developing Undergraduate Students’ Multiliteracies with
an Outcomes-based Education Approach
Samuel Chu, Kai Wah Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong [email protected]
Randolph Chan, Chun Ho Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong [email protected]
Celina Lee, Wing Yi Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study examined the effectiveness of applying
outcomes-based education (OBE) in developing
information literacy, computer software literacy, and Web
2.0 literacy (collectively termed as multiliteracies) among a
group of undergraduate students at the University of Hong
Kong. These BSc Information Management (BScIM)
students completed three paper-based perceptual surveys,
which assessed their perceived importance and familiarity
of the three kinds of literacy, upon entry into the program
and again after each academic year. Individual interviews
were conducted to further document their learning
experience. Preliminary findings indicated that students
improved in the three forms of literacy after each academic
year. The findings suggest a positive influence of OBE on
students‟ attainment of multiliteracies and give insights on
improving the implementation of OBE for students‟
learning.
KEYWORDS
Outcomes-based education, tertiary education,
multiliteracies, 21st century skills
INTRODUCTION
In the 21st century, the literacy landscape has changed from
a print-saturated system to a multimodal semiotic system
(Iyer & Luke, 2010) owing to the rapid technology
advancement and globalization (Cazden, 1996). As a
response to such transformation, multiliteracies have been
regarded as increasingly important skills to be acquired by
students in the 21st century society. The term
„multiliteracies‟ was coined by the New London Group in
1996, and despite the ongoing discussion surrounding this
concept, scholars and researchers have yet to reach a
consensus over its definition. Westby (2010) has broadly
defined multiliteracies to be consisted of any literacy that
extends beyond the conventional areas of reading and
writing skills.
With the emerging emphasis on multiliteracies, educators
have been struggling to find an effective pedagogy to help
students develop these knowledge and skills. As the more
traditional didactic approach encourages a unidirectional
knowledge transmission (Chang, Jones & Kunnemeyer,
2002), it appears to be incongruent with multiliteracies,
which could not be developed through rote memorization.
Teachers tend to lack experience and confidence in
teaching multiliteracies (Rowsell et al., 2008) as it is a
relatively new education focus. Moreover, as the term
„multiliteracies‟ remains broadly defined, teachers may
have vague ideas of what knowledge and skills exactly are
needed.
With the challenges faced by educators in facilitating the
development of multiliteracies among students, this study
tested the feasibility of the outcomes-based education
(OBE) as a pedagogical approach. In this study, we focused
on three specific multiliteracies: information literacy,
computer software literacy, and Web 2.0 literacy. The
familiarity and importance of the literacy components as
perceived by a group of undergraduate students in the BSc
Information Management (BScIM) program in the
University of Hong Kong was measured. It is expected that
there is a linear relationship between the perceived
importance and familiarity. If students become more
familiar with a kind of literacy, they will tend to perceive
that as more important. Changes in students‟ perceptions on
multiliteracies were examined. Based on the findings of
this study, suggestions on how to maximize the potential of
OBE are given.
LITERATURE REVIEW Multiliteracies – an overview
The New London Group (1996) pointed out that with the
rapid development caused by globalization, technology and
social diversity, the traditional language-based education
approaches required a breakthrough change. Since then, a
new education focus has emerged, with multiliteracies
being regarded as important skills to be acquired. Despite
the rapid growth of interest and emphasis put on
„multiliteracies‟, definitions have varied. In Tynes‟ (1998)
interpretation, multiliteracies include amongst others,
computer literacy, networking literacy, technology literacy,
information literacy, media literacy and visual literacy.
Anstey and Bull (2006) defined a multiliterate person as
one who “is flexible and strategic and can understand and
use literacy and literate practices with a range of texts and
This is the space reserved for copyright notices.
ASIST 2012, October 26-31, 2012, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Copyright notice continues right here.
2 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
technologies; in socially responsible ways; in a socially,
culturally, and linguistically diverse world; and to fully
participate in life as an active and informed citizen” (p. 55).
More recently, Westby (2010) emphasized that literacy has
to be extended beyond the conventional areas of reading
and writing skills.
Information Literacy
Amongst a wide range of components comprising
multiliteracies, information literacy has been widely
discussed (Bawden, 2001; Bruce, 1997; Catts & Lau, 2008;
Hepworth, 1999; Huvila, 2011; Spitzer et al., 1998; Webber
& Johnston, 2000). Sawetrattanasatian (2008) summarized
that the central features of information literacy include (1)
searching for information effectively and efficiently, (2)
evaluating information sources critically, (3) organizing
and using information properly and ethically, and (4)
contributing new ideas and knowledge. In this study, these
common features of information literacy were considered
in assessing students‟ perceptions.
Computer software literacy
Haigh (1985) broadly defined computer literacy as the
knowledge and skills a person needs to acquire, to work
and live in the society. It is also defined by Martin and
Grudziecki as knowing how to use applications and
computers for practical purposes (as cited in Covello, 2010).
Despite the significant increase in the use of computers in
classrooms over the past few decades, the term „computer
literacy‟ has remained poorly defined (Goodson & Mangan,
1996). In this study, computer software literacy refers to
the ability to use computer software purposefully.
Web 2.0 literacy
Web 2.0 is defined by Chiang et al. (2009) as an umbrella
term to explain the various Web developments and its key
concepts, including collaboration, user participation, file
sharing, social networking and rich user experience. This
study examines Web 2.0 literacy as it refers to the ability to
make use of technology such as blogs and social
networking tools to interact with other users.
Multiliteracies and students’ learning ability
One of the reasons behind the importance of multiliteracies
comes from their potential to enhance students‟ learning
experiences. Many researchers have suggested that students
with higher level of multiliteracies are able to utilize
learning opportunities better. Alexander (2008) suggested
that with the use of Web 2.0 tools in learning, students
develop information literacy that allows them to explore,
critique and learn from a rich reservoir of links and
resources. He also suggested that a higher level of critical
thinking skill is required from students to sift through
materials using search engines. He further claimed that the
open Web has a positive effect on learning as students have
more opportunities to write. Similarly, Dang and Robertson
(2010) pointed out the benefits of Web 2.0 applications
associated with increased opportunities for students to
express their ideas, hence enhancing their confidence and
engagement in learning activities. Chan and Cmor (2009)
also noted that students perceived blogs as avenues to learn
research and information skills, share knowledge with peers,
and consequently improve the quality of their assignments. Developing students’ multiliteracies
Tierney (2006) noted that educators struggle with teaching
multiliteracies. Webber (2000) suggested that in order to
help students acquire multiliteracies, schools should allow
more time and space for the librarians, who are information
experts. Chu et al. (2011), in their study on the
development of multiliteracies of a group of primary school
students, suggested that the combination of collaborative
teaching that involved librarians, and inquiry project-based
learning contributes to the development of information
literacy and IT skills. They found that the characteristics of
these pedagogical methods, which require deep thinking,
the ability to apply knowledge, reasoning skills and in
depth exploration of issues, contribute towards the
development of multiliteracies.
Outcomes-based Education (OBE)
OBE has its roots from competency-based education, a
pedagogical approach introduced in the North America
during the 60s to cope with the concerns about students‟
lack of necessary competencies upon school completion
(Butler, 2004). Spady and Marshall (1994) defined OBE as
a teaching strategy that organizes and develops an
education system around a set of objectives to be achieved
by students upon completion of the learning experiences.
Hence, OBE puts more emphasis on the learning outcomes,
which are perceived to be more measurable than the more
personal learning process (Kovalik & Dalton, 1997).
Compared to the traditional didactic teaching approach,
OBE is student-centered (McDaniel, et al., 2000). Instead
of focusing on the knowledge transmission process from
teachers to students, OBE emphasizes the knowledge and
skills that students can learn from the lessons (Botha, 2002).
Being a student-oriented pedagogy, OBE requires teachers
to assume the role of facilitators who create learner-friendly
environments through teacher-student interactions, peer
interactions and the use of new technologies in the
classrooms (McDaniel, et al., 2000).
OBE had been adopted worldwide (Aldridge, et al., 2006;
Berman, 1995; Brindley, 2001; Rees, 2004; Shipley, 1995;
Wien & Dudley-Marling, 1998) and in all levels of
educational settings ranging from primary to tertiary
institutions. OBE had been widely employed in tertiary
education, especially in the subject areas of medical
education (Harden, 2002; Rees, 2004; Ross, 1999), food
science (Hartel & Gardner, 2003) and life sciences (Ryder,
2004).
The major component of OBE is the „outcomes‟ and
studies have defined and measured learning outcomes
(Butler, 2004; Faris, 1998; Hartel & Gardner, 2003; Jenkins
& Unwin, 1996; Kovalik & Dalton, 1997; Lorenzen, 1999;
Shipley, 1994; Spady, 1994). Faris (1998) defined learning
3 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
outcomes as “clear statements specifying what a learner
should know, understand, and able to do” (p. 11). More
recently, Hartel and Gardner (2003) presented a more
detailed meaning of learning outcomes as “precise
statements of what faculty expects students to know and be
able to do as a result of completing a program, course, unit
or lesson” (p. 35).
Together with well-defined learning outcomes, the
effectiveness of OBE can be gauged by conducting
evaluations and assessments. The faculty members need to
critically review the instructional approaches in order to
recapitulate whether each learning outcomes statement is
sufficiently addressed (Hartel & Gardner, 2003). Minimum
learning outcomes achievement should be explicitly
identified for the students (Faris, 1998). Authentic and
tailor-made assessments should be developed (Lorenzen,
1999) in order to examine if the students are able to attain
the desired specific learning outcomes. Students‟ project-
based assignments in the forms of portfolios or course-
specific tests or examinations are some of the common
methods used in assessment (Brindley, 2001). A few
studies had also recommended the use of self-assessment
surveys in determining the students‟ attainment of course
level and program level learning outcomes (Brindley, 2001;
Hartel & Gardner, 2003; McCullough, 2008; Shipley,
1994). The suggestions by Lorenzen (1999) and Spady
(1994) for the successful implementation of OBE could be
summarized in three main stages:
1. Delineate learning outcomes to be achieved by
students;
2. Develop appropriate curriculum and incorporate
suitable instructional methods to help students achieve
the desired learning outcomes;
3. Assess students‟ attainment of learning outcomes
through various evaluation methods.
While OBE has been widely implemented, there have been
relatively few studies that utilized the approach specifically
for the development of multiliteracies. This study focuses
on the application of OBE and changes in students‟
multiliteracies.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study implemented OBE over a 2-year period, and
changes in multiliteracies were examined among
undergraduate students. The implementation of OBE in
facilitating these changes was also evaluated. The desired
learning outcomes for information literacy, Web 2.0
literacy, and computer software literacy were identified,
and the following research questions were set to guide the
research process:
1. Did the students‟ perceptions of their learning
outcomes change over the 2-year period?
1. Information literacy
2. Web 2.0 literacy
3. Computer software literacy
2. Did students‟ learning expectation change over time
and did it meet with the learning outcomes?
3. How did the students and lecturers perceive OBE as a
pedagogy for facilitating the development of
multiliteracies?
PROCEDURE
This study employed a mixed methods research design,
combining quantitative and qualitative data to generate a
more comprehensive understanding of the research focus.
Instructional design
The BScIM (2009–2011) was a two-year full-time
undergraduate program. Students were required to
complete 16 courses, covering information management,
information retrieval, knowledge management, digital
libraries, database systems and other topics related to the
scope. Among the 16 compulsory courses, „Professional
experience‟ and „Project‟ are two courses that allow
students to apply the theories and knowledge they learnt in
other courses into real-life situations. Program outcomes
were devised by the curriculum design team and every
course was designed, in terms of teaching strategies and
subject knowledge. Information literacy, computer software
literacy and Web 2.0 literacy were identified as the generic
academic learning outcomes of the BScIM program. The
students were expected to have a progressive development
in all three kinds of literacy. To facilitate monitoring of
students‟ development, self-reports of learning outcomes
were administered.
The learning outcomes self-report of information literacy
consisted of a list of components that were categorized into
three parts: source types, electronic databases/internet
resources/ search engines, and information search
knowledge and skills. Similarly, the curriculum design
team also came up with a list of Web 2.0 applications
consisting of 8 items that refer to blogs, wikis and social
networking tools. Lastly, another list consisted of essential
software in information management. It was expected that
students should attain at least a familiarity of 3 (somewhat
familiar) in every item to be considered as having
successfully achieved the learning outcome.
Participants
This study involved two groups of participants: students
and the teaching staff. The student participants included 21
undergraduate students of the Faculty of Education of the
University of Hong Kong. They were the students who
joined the BScIM program in September 2009. They
received education in the field of information management
and technology studies. In addition to the student
participants, 7 teaching staff were interviewed. Participants
from the teaching staff were lecturers from the Division of
Information & Technoolgy Studies in the Faculty of
Education. They were involved in teaching the BScIM
students in the period of 2009 – 2011.
4 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
Data collection and analysis
Three data collection methods were employed in this
research. Self-report assessments of learning outcomes
were administered to all participating students (n=21).
Telephone interviews with students (n=17) were conducted,
as well as individual face-to-face interviews with the
teaching staff (n=7).
Two self-report questionnaires were administered to the
undergraduate students in three phases of the study: before
(Sept 2009), during (Apr 2010) and after (Apr 2011)
undertaking the program. The first instrument aimed to
assess students‟ familiarity and perceptions of importance
of information literacy components. Students were asked to
evaluate their level of familiarity and perceptions of
importance of three dimensions: (a) source types, (b)
electronic databases/internet resources/search engines, and
(c) information search knowledge and skills. The second
instrument examined information management and
technology skills. It required the students to report their
familiarity and perceptions of importance of computer
software and Web 2.0 applications. Both questionnaires
utilized a five-point Likert-type scale of familiarity (1 being
“not familiar”, 5 being “very familiar”, and 0 as “don‟t
know”) and perceptions of importance (1 being “not
important”, 5 being “very important”, and 0 as “don‟t
know”). It was expected that students‟ familiarity should be
at least 3 (somewhat familiar) in order to be classified as
successful attainment of the learning outcome. It was also
expected that there would be a linear relationship between
students‟ familiarity and perceived importance.
Telephone interviews were conducted 6 months after the
completion of the program with 18 graduates from
November to December 2011. The interviews aimed to
probe deeper on the students‟ familiarity and perceptions of
importance of their multiliteracies after undertaking the
program. Open-ended questions were developed from the
results obtained from the self-reports. Students were asked
to further describe any perceived individual changes in the
level of multiliteracies. They were also asked to comment
on their learning experience under OBE.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted in January 2012
with teachers, who were asked to comment on their
students‟ change in multiliteracies throughout the 2-year
program. Open-ended questions were developed based on
the findings obtained from the student interviews. All
interviews were recorded and transcribed.
SPSS version 16.0 was used for all the statistical analyses.
Paired-sample t-tests was used to analyze and compare the
survey data obtained before, during and after the program
in order to determine if there is any change concerning
students‟ familiarity and perceived importance of
multiliteracies within the two years. Items to which the
respondents answered “don‟t know” were not included in
the analysis. The statistical significance level in this study
is set at 0.05, associating with a 95% confidence interval.
FINDINGS The purpose of the current study was to determine whether
students attained learning outcomes for multiliteracies
during the implementation of OBE in the BScIM program.
To investigate how students gained learning outcomes, the
researchers considered the changes in students‟ self-reports
of (a) information literacy, (b) computer software literacy,
and (c) Web 2.0 literacy.
Changes in Familiarity and Perceived Importance of Information Literacy Students' perceived importance of various source types
Respondents were surveyed on their perceived importance
of different potential sources of information. Several source
types, including journals (t=-4.183, p<.001) and statistics
sources (t=-3.23, p=.004), exhibited an overall
improvement in their perceived importance. Besides,
perceived importance of conference papers (t=-3.179,
p=.005) and encyclopedias (t=-2.225, p=.038) also
increased when comparing the second and third survey,
even the change between the first and second surveys was
not significant. This indicates that students came to
recognize their importance during the later stage of the
program. Overall, journals, conference papers,
encyclopedias and statistics sources had a significant
improvement in their perceived importance whereas the
perceived importance of consulting lecturers significantly
decreased (t=2.459, p=.024) comparing the first and the
third surveys.
Students’ familiarity and perceptions of importance of various electronic databases/internet resources/search engines
In this section, participants were asked to rate their
familiarity and perceived importance with various
resources and databases. The mean of the total ratings in
the third survey is 3.19 which means that students are
“somewhat familiar” with the listed electronic databases
and internet resources. Results of dependent t-tests
indicated that the perceived familiarity of CSA (t=-3.0,
p=.012), ERIC (t=-3.145, p=.006) and Google Scholar (t=-
2.447, p=.024) increased between the second and third
surveys. The study showed that seven items (EBSCOhost,
Eric, Google Scholar, Lexis-Nexis, Scopus, Web of
Science and Wise News) had an overall increase in their
familiarity (all with p<.05) comparing the first and the third
surveys.
On the other hand, multiple-disciplinary databases, such
EBSCOhost, Eric, Google Scholar and HKALL, increased
significantly in the perceived importance from the first and
third surveys (all with p<.05). Other items such as CSA,
LISA, ProQuest and Research Pro, also increased in their
corresponding ratings on perceived importance between the
second and third surveys (all with p<.05).
The paired-sample t-tests was computed to compare the
perceived familiarity and perceived importance of various
electronic databases during the third survey. As
demonstrated in Figure 1, six electronic databases,
5 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
including Google Scholar, Lexis-Nexis, ProQuest, PsycInfo,
Web of Science and WorldCat, showed significant
differences in terms of their perceived familiarity and
perceived importance (all with p<.05). Students tended to
perceive these databases as important but had a relatively
low perceived familiarity with them.
Figure 1. Comparison between familiarity and perceived importance of various electronic databases/internet resources/search engines (posttest).
Students’ perceived familiarity and importance of various information search knowledge and skills
Participants were also required to rate a number of
information search knowledge and skills in terms of their
familiarity and perceived importance. The overall change
of perceived familiarity with various information search
knowledge and skills is significant when comparing the
first and third surveys (t=-3.002, p=.007). Students tended
to show greater improvement in the familiarity of five
information search knowledge and skills (AND, OR,
Parentheses, Wildcard, Proximity and Step 4: conduct a
search statement) between the first and third surveys (all
with p<.05).
In addition, the results indicated that there was an overall
increase of perceived importance from “somewhat
important” (M=3.72) to “important” (M=4.21) from the
first to third surveys. The perceived importance of primary
search knowledge and skills, including search by
Date/Year/Time period and Boolean Operators (AND, OR,
NOT) have increased when comparing the first and third
surveys (all with p<.05). On the other hand, there was also
a significant increase in the perceived importance of
advanced research knowledge and skills, including
Parentheses, Truncation, Proximity and Step 4: conducting
a search statement throughout the program (p<.05).
Similarly, in an interview graduate LYW expressed that “I
became more familiar with searching skills, with which I
can find more accurate information with less time. It helps
me work more efficiently in online information searching
and research”.
The paired-sample t-tests showed that in the third survey,
several information search knowledge and skills have
significant differences between perceived familiarity and
perceived importance (t=-3.824, p=.001). Seven items were
rated with high importance but low familiarity (field search
by author, field search by title, thesaurus, Step 1: identify
key concepts, Step 2: choose search terms, Step 3: Decide
on appropriate databases search, and Step 4: conduct a
search statement). As Figure 2 reveals, Students tended to
perceive field search by author, field search by title,
thesaurus and the four step keyword search as important
but they were not familiar with the ways of performing
those search skills (all with p<.05).
One lecturer (FS) mentioned that “all of the listed
databases are necessary in this field, especially for
information literacy. Students should know how to make
use of different sources and perspectives to find the
information”, echoing students‟ high levels of perceived
importance. However, many graduates, such as HCH
perceived that their low level of familiarity to a range of
databases was a result of the “lack of practice
opportunities”.
6 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
Figure 2. Comparison between perceived familiarity and importance of various information search knowledge and
skills (posttest).
Changes in Computer Software Literacy Students' perceived familiarity and importance of computer software
In most of the computer software, including bibliographic
software, project management software, data mining
software, record management tools, online survey tools,
digital library software and animations on web, students
had significant increases in their familiarity from the first to
the third surveys (all with p<.05). On the other hand, some
of the items, for example database management software,
web page authoring tools, digital storytelling software,
video editing software and advanced spreadsheet software,
had significant changes between the first and second
surveys (all with p<.05). In general, the overall mean rating
is below 3, which indicates that students did not reach the
minimum level of desired familiarity with the various kinds
of computer software.
Results of paired-sample t-tests showed that there was a
significant increase in the perceived importance of web
page authoring tools when comparing the first and the
second surveys (t=-3.0, p=.007). On the other hand, digital
library software has a significant decrease in the perceived
importance particularly in the later stage of the program
when comparing the second and third surveys (t=4.135,
p=.001).
The paired-sample t-tests comparing the perceived
familiarity and importance of computer software during the
third survey demonstrated that eight items were found
important but students reported low familiarity. As
presented in Figure 3, computer software including
statistical software, project management software, database
management software, data mining software, web page
authoring tools, record management tools, online survey
tools and advanced spreadsheet software, are perceived to
be important by the students, but their level of familiarity
was significantly lower than the perceived importance (all with p <.05).
Regarding such discrepancies, graduate LKF commented
that he “did not have the chance to practice SPSS
(Statistical Software) but only know about its functions in
the lecture”. Graduate HCH also reflected that he “lacked
the opportunity to apply the software in real-life situations”.
Graduate CSK commented that “the program progress
needs to be slowed down, particularly for those computer
courses. For some students without much prior computer
knowledge they had to struggle”. Graduate LHN also noted
that the program “needs to be more in-depth and detailed
in terms of knowledge delivered by lecturers in class. When
I learnt MySQL, I did not have much help from the others. I
do think I need more guidance in the process”.
7 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
Figure 3. Comparison between perceived familiarity and importance of computer software (posttest).
Changes in Web 2.0 Literacy
Students' perceived familiarity and importance of Web 2.0 applications
Students were also required to rate their familiarity and
perceived importance of Web 2.0 applications. The result
of the t-test indicated that students‟ familiarity with Google
docs (t=-2.5, p=.021) and RSS (Really Simple Syndication)
(t=-4.036, p=.001) significantly increased between the
second and third surveys.
The result of paired-sample t-tests that compares the mean
ratings between the first and third survey illustrated that the
overall rating of perceived importance of Web 2.0
applications increased significantly after the program (t=-
2.757, p=0.013). Also, the results showed that specific
items, such as Wikis (t=-4.025, p=.001) and RSS (t=-2.511,
p=.026) significantly increased in perceived importance
between the first and second survey. Whereas, the
perceived importance of Google docs (t=-3.758, p=.001)
and social networking (t=-2.792, p=.012) significantly
increased comparing the first and the third surveys.
Paired-sample t-tests compared the perceived familiarity
and perceived importance of Web 2.0 applications during
the third survey. As indicated in Figure 4, there is a
significant difference between the perceived familiarity and
perceived importance of blogs (t=2.752, p=0.012). Students
tended to have a high familiarity with blogs but did not
consider them as important.
With regard to this discrepancy, graduate HCH commented
that “The program should consider the actual needs of the
students. There are too many compulsory courses. There is
a mismatch between what lecturers taught and what
students wanted to learn”. In order to minimize the
mismatch between learning outcomes and students‟
expectation, lecturer JL suggested that “there should be
more communication between the students and lecturers”.
Furthermore, lecturer SC suggested that, “more flexibility
on course selection should be given to students so that they
can develop in different streams”.
Figure 4. Comparison between perceived familiarity and importance of Web 2.0 applications (posttest).
8 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
DISCUSSION General improvement in multiliteracies
Students in the BScIM program appear to have improved
multiliteracies after undergoing outcome-based teaching
and learning. General improvement was demonstrated in
the learning outcomes of information literacy, computer
software literacy and Web 2.0 literacy. In terms of
information literacy, there was a substantial increase in
students‟ ability to identify source types, recognize
electronic databases and use information search skills.
After the 2-year program, students were found to be more
familiar with the skills of locating, evaluating and
retrieving information from a wide range of database
resources. This positive outcome suggests that OBE could
contribute to teaching and learning information literacy.
In terms of computer software literacy, students
demonstrated a significant development in the perceived
familiarity with computer software. However, the mean
score of familiarity after the 2-year programme was not
adequate to meet the desired outcome of familiarity (i.e.
score of 3.0).
In terms of Web 2.0 literacy, students reported a high level
of perceived familiarity with Web 2.0 applications after the
2-year period. Such rating suggests that students have
become more aware of how to use Web 2.0 tools to
collaborate, co-publish, and interact effectively with
multiple users. In general, the findings of the study indicate
that with the use of OBE as a teaching strategy,
improvements in multiliteracies could occur.
Mismatch between program outcomes and students’ learning expectation
The results of this study show that students possessed high
familiarity but relatively low perceived importance for
some items, such as blogs, indicating that there might be a
mismatch between the program outcomes and students‟
learning expectation.
Although program outcomes can guide the direction of
students‟ development in multiliteracies, students‟
expectations also played a significant role in shaping their
overall learning process. It was recommended that lecturers
let the students have a thorough comprehension about the
potential and importance of the multiliteracies before the
teaching and learning process. By introducing the learning
outcomes to the students, they understand better and
become more aware of the needs of acquiring
multiliteracies. Consequently, they could be more
committed to their learning throughout the program.
The learning outcomes could be revised and modified
according to the needs of the students. By communicating
the learning outcomes to the students, lecturers can receive
feedback and comments, and make necessary changes on
course content and lesson plans. The process of interaction
and collaboration can provide flexibility in developing the
learning outcomes. Balancing the expectations of the
program review panel and students could potentially
increase the effectiveness of OBE.
Furthermore, dividing the program into several streams of
specialization could make learning outcomes be more
specific and customized to the expectation of the students.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the students can have a
deeper and more specialized development in term of
multiliteracies.
Discrepancy between expected achievement and students’ acquired level of multiliteracies
Students reported a high degree of perceived importance
but a relatively low degree of familiarity on a range of
computer software and search skills. For instance, the
comparison between perceived familiarity and perceived
importance of computer software (in the third survey)
demonstrated that the student participants regarded most of
the listed computer software as somewhat important while
the reported familiarity was rather low. Students‟
comments might indicate that they need more scaffolding
support and practice opportunities during the learning
process. As suggested by Davis (2003), OBE does not
specify certain educational strategies or teaching methods.
It is more important to emphasize on whether the students
can achieve the learning outcome rather than the way they
get there. Therefore, flexible teaching strategies, such as
small tutorials, practical session and online scaffolding
should be considered to create a learner friendly
environment in order to accommodate the needs of
different students. OBE should be supported by flexible
teaching strategies, which aim at directing all students
towards the same learning outcomes.
Students‟ lack of prior related knowledge might be another
cause of their insufficient familiarity with a number of
components of multiliteracies upon program completion.
Adequate time and assistance have to be provided so that
each student can reach the maximum potential (Towers,
1996). It is recommended that the program should direct
more efforts and resources in the process of teaching the
students with multiliteracies, in order to enhance the
students‟ accomplishment with generic academic learning
outcome. More importantly, students‟ ability and faculty
resources have to be taken into account in the stage of
program development, so as to set up challenging but yet
achievable learning outcomes for the students.
LIMITATION AND FUTURE STUDIES
The study relied on the subjective rating and perception of
the student participants. It lacked objective assessment
methods, such as tests, to evaluate the development of
multiliteracies (e.g., Web 2.0 literacy) among the students.
Thus, future research could be conducted with the
consideration of both subjective and objective assessment
methods. The generalizability of the study findings are
restricted by the sampling strategy such that the participants
consist of a single class of undergraduate students. It is
suggested that future researchers could expand the scale of
9 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
this study in order to obtain a more representative sample
of undergraduate students.
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to examine changes in multiliteracies‟
learning outcomes with the use of OBE among
undergraduate students. It was found that in a programme
that used OBE pedagogy, students‟ multiliteracies gained
significant improvements after the programme duration.
Students showed improvements in information literacy,
computer software literacy and Web 2.0 literacy. Students‟
and teachers‟ comments showed that the OBE
implementation could be enhanced by carefully setting
learning outcomes, such that students‟ ability, learning
expectation and faculty‟s resources are well balanced and
considered.
REFERENCE
Aldridge, J.M., Laugksch, R.C., & Fraser, B.J. (2006).
School-level environment and outcomes-based
education in South Africa. Learning Environments
Research, 9(2), 123-147.
Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and emergent
multiliteracies. Theory Into Practice, 47, 150-160.
Andrich, D. (2002). A Framework Relating Outcomes
Based Education and the Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28(1),
35-59.
Anstey, M., & Bull G. (2006). Teaching and learning
multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Baguley, M., Pullen, D., & Short, M. (2010).
Multiliteracies and the new world order. In D.L. Pullen
& D.R.Cole (Eds.), Multiliteracies and technology
enhanced education: social practice and the global
classroom (pp. 1-17). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A
review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2),
218-259.
Botha, R. J. (2002). The Introduction of a System of OBE
in South Africa: Transforming and Empowering a
Marginalized and Disenfranchised Society. Paper
presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the
Comparative and International Education Society,
Orlando, FL
Brindley, G. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in
practice: Some examples and emerging insights.
Language Testing, 18(4), 393-407.
Bruce, C. (1997). The Seven Faces of Information Litearcy.
Adelaide: Auslib Press.
Butler, M. (2004). Outcomes based/ Outcomes focused
education overview. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=Outcomes+based%2F+Outcomes+focused+education+overview&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Catts R. & Lau J. (2008). Towards Information Literacy
Indicators. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001587/158723
e.pdf
Cazden, C., Cope, B. & Fairclough, N., Gee, J., et al.
(1996). Pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social
futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 60-92.
Chang, W., Jones, A. & Kunnemeyer, R. (2002).
Interactive Teaching Appraoch in Year One University
Physics in Taiwan: Implementation and Evaluation.
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,
3(1), Article 3, p.3
Chu, S., Tse, S.K., & Chow, K. (2011). Using collaborative
teaching and inquiry project-based learning to help
primary school students develop information literacy
and information skills. Library and Information Science
Research, 33, 132 – 143.
Davis, M.H. (2003), Outcome-based education, Journal of
Veterinary Medical Education, 30(3), 227-232.
Doyle C. (1992). Outcome Measures for Information
Literacy Within the National Education Goals of 1990:
Final Report of the National Forum on Information
Literacy. US Department of Education, Washington,
DC.
Faris, R. (1998). From Elitism to Inclusive Education:
Development of Outcomes-Based Learning and Post-
Secondary Credit Accumulation and Transfer Systems
in England and Wales. 1-18. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED449830.pdf
Harden, R.M. (2002). Developments in outcome-based
education. Medical Teacher, 24(2), 117-120.
Hartel, R.W. & Gardner, D. (2003). Making the transition
to a food science curriculum based on assessment of
learning outcomes. Journal of Food Science Education,
2(2), 32-39.
Hepworth, M. (1999). A study of undergraduate
information literacy and skills: the inclusion of
information literacy and skills in the undergraduate
curriculum. IFLA Council and General Conference,
Bangkok, Thailand, Aug 20-28, 1999. Retrieved from
http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/papers/107-124e.htm
Huvila, I. (2011). The complete information literacy?
Unforgetting creation and organization of information.
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,
43(4), 237-245.
Iyer, R., & Luke, C. (2010). Multimodal, multiliteracies:
texts and literacies for the 21st century. In D.L. Pullen
& D.R.Cole (Eds.), Multiliteracies and technology
enhanced education: social practice and the global
classroom. (pp. 18-34). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Jenkins, A., & Unwin, D. (1996). Writing learning
outcomes for the Core Curriculum. NCGIA GISCC
Learning Outcomes. Retrieved from
http://www.tcc.edu/welcome/collegeadmin/OIE/SOA/re
view/toolkit/documents/Article_Writing_Learning_Out
comes_for_the_Core_Curriculum_NCGIA_GISCC.pdf
Kovalik, C.L., & Dalton, D.W. (1997). A Conceptual
Framework for Assessment: The Process/Outcome
Evaluation Model. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED409848.pdf
Lorenzen, M. (1999). Using outcome-based education in
the planning and teaching of new information
10 J:\Sam-research\TDG-OBL-Eng\publications\Conference - ASIST 2012\ASIST-v12.docx 4/30/2012 6:43:56 PM
technologies. Journal of Library Administration, 26(3),
141-152.
Mailula, E.M., Laugksch, R.C., Aldridge, J.M., & Fraser,
B.J. (2003). School-Level Environment and the
Implementation of Outcomes-Based Education in South
Africa. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED477541.pdf
McCullough, C.A. (2008). Transforming Course
Evaluations into a Meaningful Measure of Student
Outcomes Achievement. Assessment Update, 20(5), 3-5.
McDaniel, E.A., Felder, B.D., Gordon, L., Hrutka, M.E., &
Quinn, S. (2000). New faculty roles in learning
outcomes education: The experiences of four models
and institutions. Innovative Higher Education, 25(2),
143-157.
Pullen, D.L. & Cole, D.R. (Eds.), Multiliteracies and
technology enhanced education: social practice and the
global classroom. (pp. 186-188). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
Rees, C.E. (2004). The problem with outcomes-based
curricula in medical education: insights from
educational theory. Medical education, 38, 593-598.
Ross, N. (1999). AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based
education: Part 4-Outcome-based learning and the
electronic curriculum at Birmingham Medical School.
Medical Teacher, 21(1), 26-31.
Rowsell, J. Kosnik, C. & Beck, C. (2008). Fostering
multiliteracies pedagogy through preservice teacher
education. Teaching Education, 19(2), 109-122.
Ryder, J. (2004). What can students learn from final year
research projects? Bioscience Education E-journal, 4(2),
4-2. Retrieved from
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol4/be
ej-4-2.pdf
Sawetrattanasatian, O. (2008). University library web site
design: a case study of the relationship between
usability and information literacy development
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://erl.canberra.edu.au/public/adt-
AUC20090311.091629/
Shipley, D. (1994). Outcome Based Education: Its Impact
on Program Review and the Evaluation of Learners.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Spady, W., & Marshall, K. (1994, November). Light, not
heat, on OBE. The American School Board Journal,
181, 29-33.
Spitzer, K. Eisenberg, M. & Lowe, C. (1998). Information
Literacy: Essentials Skills for the Information Age.
Information Resources Publications. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University.
Tierney (2006). Examining literate lives as students engage
with multiple literacies. Theory into Practice, 45(4),
359-361.
Towers, J.M. (1996). An elementary school principal's
experience with implementing an outcome- based
curriculum. Catalyst for Change, 25(2), 19-23.
Tynes, K.R. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: teaching
and learning in the age of information. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Webber (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: new
perspectives and implications. Journal of information
Science, 26, 381-397.
Westby, C. (2010). Multiliteracies the changing world of
communication. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(1),
64-71.
Wien, C. A., & Dudley-Marling, C. (1998). Limited vision:
The Ontario curriculum and outcomes-based learning.
Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de
l'education, 23(4), 405-420.