Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge Among Mechanical Engineering Lecturers

4th Qualitative Research Convention 2007(QRC2007)- “Doing Qualitative Research: Processes, Issues and Challenges” PJ Hilton, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, 3-5 September 2007

Participatory Action Research on Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge Among Mechanical Engineering Lecturers By

Asst. Prof. Dr. Hanipah Hussin Center for Language and Human Development

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia, Jalan Hang Tuah Jaya Taman Tasik Utama, .Ayer Keroh. 75460.Melaka. Malaysia

Abstract

This paper reflects a research done on a cohort of Mechanical Engineering Lecturer

(20 lecturers) with the aims of emergent the effectiveness of educational practice.

Participants were from Kolej Kemahiran Tinggi Mara (KKTM). All participant were involve

in short course within 5 month length of learning. 64 hours for Pedagogical Content

Knowledge and 16 hours for Micro Teaching where the study used for participatory action

research. The lecturers for this course were from UTeM. Part one describes that university

challenge brings engineering lecturers and students together in a joint effort to promote the

integration of professional practice of their specialization in Mechanical Engineering and to

apply their knowledge to solve faculty related need. Part two pealed the participatory action

research design methodology and the reflective model used. It explored the notion of

reflective practice and mentoring and coaching model and it impact to the innovative and

creative teaching and strategies in respective engineering faculty. Part tree discussed how the

data was gathered and how content analysis procedure used for data analysis. Research

finding, is in part four; it explained the introductory coaching and advanced coaching during

the cycle of participatory action research.

The challenges faced by the practitioner of participatory action research were

discussed on depth. All reflective journals of the 20 lecturers were analyzed and eight

teaching knowledge bases were identified through content analysis. Part five explained the

most important Teaching Knowledge Base reflected by lecturers was self-knowledge as

lecturer, knowledge of learners and knowledge of context of industries. The role of peers,

university supervisors, and industries supervisors in creating collaborative emergent the

effectiveness of educational practice is discussed widely. Part six concluded that this study

affirmed that participatory action research and reflective practice could be embarking in

every lecturer at faculty as an appropriate means to enhance professional development among

lecturers.

Participatory Action Research on Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge Among Mechanical Engineering Lecturers


By

Asst. Prof. Dr. Hanipah Hussin Dean

Center for Language and Human Development Universiti Teknikal Malaysia, Jalan Hang Tuah Jaya

Taman Tasik Utama, .Ayer Keroh. 75460.Melaka. Malaysia


1.0 Introduction

Drawing on my experience as pedagogies practitioner since 1984, I argue that

reflective practice and participatory action research emerged or spread as an aspect of the

universities lecturers based curriculum reforms in the integrated education system in

Malaysia. In doing so, I attempt to counter the contemporary approach that lecturers-as-

researchers movement was initiated by academics in the higher-education sector. This article

show how the idea of reflective practice and practical participatory action research was

explicitly brought by the practitioner of pedagogy and their cohort engineering lecturer in

Kolej Kemahiran Tinggi Mara, (KKTM). There are 20 young mechanical engineering

lecturers volunteer to create and improve from the conventional system of teaching and

learning to initiated curriculum reforms based on their subject matter. This is a good move

for developing professional engineering lecturers in campus.

According to Foshay (1998:110) and (Hanipah (1999:37) during the process

of reflective practice and practical participatory action research , the professor and new

lecturers learn together to establish a systematic, orderly procedure for exploring problems

and finding possible actions to eliminate problems or at least to make them more manageable

in nature of student and the university.

The effective development of reflective lecturer or tutor is largely dependent

on the behavior of professor in the faculty and for that reason professional development of

professor is very important. Thus, it was encouraging to note that in KUTKM, Centre for

Academic Services (CAS) and Centre for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTLE) work

and innovation of the Staff Development Programs in five faculties, teamwork was very

much appreciated. Therefore, other than team coaching and team supervision that is presently

in practice, there should be more prerequisite to enable professor to work together in pairs or

in small teams during supervisory. This arrangement is not only to facilitate peer

observations and to allow the professor and new lecturer to practice content pedagogical

knowledge skills but also to accord them opportunities to discuss with reference to content

per-se and share their observations reflectively.

1.1 Statement of The Problem

This study also takes in account the predictions and changes in future education that

emphasizes the need of lecturers that are knowledgeable in general pedagogy and content

pedagogy, innovative and use the practice and application oriented education at KUTKM.

This awareness has brought all professor and lecturer from every faculty to continue the


effort of the organization to implement the education approach. Reflective practices and

practical participatory action research in the classroom is one of the tool that has been

chosen as an engine to move the educational approach in to practice in every faculty through

practical participatory action research design. Lecturers have to learn new skills during

teaching that we know as reflective writing. To persuaded that ‘learning to be reflective’ has

been in line with application orientation during teaching we develop a serial design. The

serial design included two cycles in order to answer the process of practicing the reflective

writing and to take an action to innovate new teaching and learning techniques and

professional development among lecturers.

1.2 Why reflective practice and practical participatory action research is needed?

i. To increase lecturers competence in pedagogical reasoning.

ii. To increase the awareness of giving a meaning to classroom experience.

iii. To produce lecturers that are able to think and take action without being ask to do so in

increasing their professionalism.

iv. To produce lecturers that are innovative and proactive in order to increase the skill of

assessing their strength and weakness as a lecturer.

1.3 The objective of the research / what prompted it to research?

i. To explore the experience of the implementation of reflective practice through practical

participatory action research in KUTKM

ii. To analyze the teaching and learning problems of lecturers through their writings in the

reflective journals.

iii. To identify the trust and values of lecturers towards their colleagues, supervisor and

professor that influences their pedagogical way of thinking.

The study focuses on the content of reflective writing in helping lecturers to develop their

pedagogical reasoning in classroom during field experiences. At last this study brings

forward these research questions clearly:

1.4 Research Questions

1. What is the pedagogical reasoning of lecturers toward their respective engineering field?

2. Does the reflective format facilitate lecturers to think reflectively in classroom practice?

3.What do lecturers report about the influence of the university community (colleagues,

mentors and professor) in developing pedagogical reasoning

2. Literature Review


Background of the Participatory action research

1990’s in Malaysia, EPRD cooperation of the schools, Kim Paik Lah (1994), Syarifah Bee Abu Bakar (1998) Hanipah Hussin (1999) used Participatory action research to increase the professionalism level of student teachers in Teacher’s Training Devision. 1980’s in Australia, Europe and America, Participatory action research is used as an empirical and systematic tool to increase the schools performance. 1991, in Europe, John Elliot use this method in Ford Teaching Project as an approach to help lecturers combine inquisitive effort in teaching and learning in the classroom. Kurt Lewin a social psychologist emphasize collaborative effort to further improve work performance in his department (Kemmis and Mc Taggart), (1981) 1953, Lewin’s idea is used in Lecturers College, Colombia University, New York as a research approach in schools.

The introduction of learning to be reflective started with contemporary issues and these

issues are complimentary with Malaysian Conceptual Model of Education.

The central points are Teaching Knowledge Base (Shulman:1987). In this matter, the

researcher uses reflective as the effective tool to create the awareness in beginner lecturers of

a lecturer’s role and their accountability toward organization and Allah/God. This is clearly

the main root towards building lecturers professionalism in Malaysian ways of philosophic.

3 Method and Procedure in Participatory action research

The research design that is used by the researcher is Practical Participatory action research

Design as in Table 1

Table 1: Practical Participatory action research Design

Type of Aim Head The Relationship

ALLAH/GOD

SELF AS LECTURE SOCIETY

Knowledge Skills Attitudes


Participatory action research

Researcher/Professor Roles

between facilitator and subjects

Practical Participatory action research in classroom

Formatted the reflective writing to help lecturer reflect effectively. The effectiveness of reflective practice in developing professionalism

Co-researcher / Principles Researcher coaching and scaffolds and encouraging self reflection

Co-operation (Consultation) Coach Scaffold

Source: Zuber-Skerrit,Ortrun (2001:1)

Although the study included some faculty but then, this research has a few limitations in

these areas:

1. It was a 46-acceptance journal, which was, involves one professor (researcher) and 46

lecturers that share the clinical supervision

2. Based on the small number of participant the research findings can only show the

processes of reflective practice are done in that faculty and their nature. 3.1 Sample

An interesting point, that the researcher wants to highlight is the researcher has choose

content pedagogy and general pedagogy based on cohort study, that is those that are directly

under the researcher’s supervision. The good point about this is coaching and scaffolding can

be done directly to the participant during field experience in all spirals planed by the

researcher.

‘Although Hanipah rightly pointed out that her finding of her study are not intended to be broad-spectrum, after reading her thesis, I suspect that there may be many commonalties in the difficulties experienced by lecturer and professor in the Malaysian context, and those experienced by many Australian lecturer and professor. These commonalties suggest that they may be considerable potential for cross-cultural differences between the two contexts. I found the study valuable in that it alerted me to this possibility. An additional strength of the study, in my view, is that it very clearly demonstrates the usefulness of practical participatory action research in addressing the ongoing challenges in developing professional lecturers in university.

(Dr.Jennifer Sumsion, Lecturer in Faculty of Education, Macquarie University, Australia,)

3.2 Method and Practical Participatory action research Procedures

Qualitative approach used in this research. case study has been used. Practical Participatory

action research Model and Reflective Model has been used as a technique to gather data.

Participatory action research model that is used has two cycles (reflex 2 phases) where every

cycle has fives smaller spiral (reflex 5 faculties). The reflective process that is used moves

two cycles and smaller spiral simultaneously. This technique is called second order

participatory action research where the researcher or professor and supervisor subject matter

co-operate in coaching and scaffolding, exchange data, reflective and re-plan teaching and

learning to improve the current practice.


Diagram 1 : Reflective Practice on Practical Participatory action research

The triangulation process is repeated until the 5th spiral in the practical participatory action

research model, (see Diagram 1 above)

3.3 Triangulation technique

Triangulation technique has been used to make sure the data is valid. There are 6 ways that

has been used by the researcher to gather data that is.

1. Lecturer’s weekly journal.

2. Transcript from audio tape of semi-structured interview

3. Researcher’s weekly reflective journal

4. Feedback forms of clinical supervision from supervisor/professor

The triangulation process that is done by the researcher can be illustrated as Diagram 2. As

summary of the techniques used by the researcher for data gathering is that 4 techniques has

been used. The console on the validity of the data using the triangulation technique shows the

maturity of the researcher. The continuous analyses of data is planned from one spiral to the

other thus the data is vital and generative. This means the data from one spiral stimulate data

in the next spiral.

Diagram 2 : Triangulation process by the researcher

14 weeks length

Advance Coaching

1

2

3

4

5

1 2

4

5

3

Feedback from professor, peers and supervisor

Planning

Teaching

Reflective

Cycle 1 shown researcher’s spiral in introductory coaching.

Cycle 2 shown researcher’s spiral in advance coaching

Introductory coaching Action Research


3.4 Data Analysis Data analysis in this study followed the Strauss and Corbin (1990) procedures called

Reflection on Data Analysis in Practical Participatory action research . Researcher used the

participants data entry or data collection (for example interview, journal, observational

forms) and followed

4. Findings of the Research

The findings of this research, the thinking pattern of the trainees can be detected by reflective

practice in the classroom can be shown as below:

Table 3: Subject’s Thinking Pattern Based On Reflective Practice In The Classroom

Category Sub category Property

1. Self knowledge

as a lecturer

Look at the self aspect as a lecturer

Self trust and values

Aims and commitment

Balance between work requirement and personal needs

152

56

48

4

2. Knowledge of

students

Student’s behavior

Handling student’s behavior

Motivating student to study

The student’s intellectual level and study style

Likes / dislikes of the student

Interaction of the student

65

24

25

20

13

1

3. Knowledge of

education

School

School’s community

Personal matters of the lecturer

Lecturer

Community

49

32

10

6

2

4. Knowledge of

general pedagogy

Structuring activities

Techniques in teaching

Teaching aids

Time control of activities

Controlling classroom

Lesson plan

18

17

15

6

2

4

5. Knowledge of

pedagogy’s

content

Choosing of assignments

Examples of pictures / resources

16

4

Reflective by trainees Reflective by researcher

Feedback


6. Knowledge of

the curriculum

Evaluation

Objective

School’s curriculum

National curriculum

11

6

3

1

7. Knowledge of

vision/ mission

of education

Aims of education

Malaysia Educational Philosophy

8

2

8. Knowledge of

content

Concept in subject 10

5 The Implication of the Study

5.1 Researcher Reflects on Their Experienced?

‘ I learned, as a pedagogies professor, theories can be explicitly practices, and that theorizing

consisted of articulating those ‘tacit theories’ and subjecting them to critique in free and

open professional discourse. I also learned that high-quality professional discourse depends

upon the willingness of everyone involved to tolerate a diversity of views and practices.’

(Hanipah:2005)

5.2 Peer Acknowledgement?

As a summary, the researcher as truly made the effort to produce a quality thesis that can

drive the reader and future researchers in Malaysia to do further research. This means the

basis of reflective practice and participatory action research should be used as a method of

educational and human resources future research ’.

(Mr.Hamdan Abdul Kadir, Lecturer in Faculty of Human Resources Development, Universiti

Technologi Malaysia)

5.3 What Are the External Practitioner Report on The Study?

…‘This study makes a welcome contribution to the research literature about reflective

practice in lecturer education by moving beyond the Western focus of much of the existing

literature. As a Western reader, I found the Malaysian context of this study most interesting,

and in my opinion, this focus gives a number of strengths.

This document provides Western readers with insights into Islamic beliefs and their

relevance to the professional preparation of Malaysian lecturer. More specifically, it

highlights how religious beliefs can be instrumental in fostering a commitment to reflection.

The role of religion, and spiritual aspects of reflection in general, are rarely mentioned in

the contemporary Western literature about reflection, so the thesis makes a particularly

worthwhile contribution in this respect’…


…‘I also found the discussion of issues and implications arising from the study very

thorough and perceptive. In my view, this chapter demonstrated Hanipah’s ability to critique

socio-cultural and political influences impacting on the Malaysian lecturer education

context, and to engage, herself, in critical reflection’…

(Dr.Jennifer Sumsion, Lecturer in Faculty of Education, Macquarie University, New South

Wales, Australia,)

5.3.2 Senior Professor Perspective

…‘A very good report in which she has incorporate a long list of up to date relevant

references. In Malaysia, there has not been that many research projects on participatory

action research and reflective teaching. Although reflective teaching is a familiar concept to

most has been done to promote it seriously. Similarly, clinical supervision became popular

especially in lecturer training colleges of Education Ministry in the 80’s. Hanipah’s study

should be able to revive the interest of Malaysian educators in those two areas, which if

taken seriously, may be able to contribute to effective teaching. All educational systems need

more reflective practicing lecturers. The report is well written and presented. Reseach

questing were stated clearly and all have been answered generally in quite a comprehensive,

organized and well-structured manner. The research methodology was also quite

appropriately chosen for the kind of study she had undertaken. She also took measures to

control the reliability and validity of instruments used in her study. The theoretical

framework and model on which her study is based is clearly explained and rationalized. The

title of the study describes the work done accurately’…

(Prof. Dr.Zaiton Sidin, Dekan Fakulti Pendidikan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia)

6. Conclusion

The researcher has discuss this study in two main parts that is:

1. How the researcher does participatory action research and the changes that is faced.

2. Discussion on ‘Knowing How’ and Application on Research Methodology in work place.

Some difficulty in every spiral had discussed analytically. Grounded Theory and inquiry

method had shown clearly. All data used by the researcher and participants to develop new

data in their new cycle of participatory action research . The processes carried for four and

the half-month.

A few obstacle has been identified like getting the co-operation from 2 out of 46 participants

to write reflectively and getting the co-operation from the university community to plan

reflective thinking is reported hard to supervise. Nevertheless the main matter that was


discussing in the thinking pattern is the self-knowledge of being a reflective lecturer where

by new lecturers does have more of this. They are also reported to emphasize values and self-

trust, aims and commitment in the subject matter. The researcher has made description about

the thinking pattern. The second matter that was discussed by the lecturers is their knowledge

about their students. The research has made detail comparison of each sub category. Thus,

the terms ‘reflective thinking’, ‘reflection’ and ‘reflective practice’ are used interchangeably

throughout this study to refer to the process lecturers employed as they reviewed,

reconstructed, and critically analyzed issues of concern that arose from their field experience.

The process is defined as active and critical. Careful consideration is given to knowledge,

beliefs, values, feelings and interesting events in light of the grounds, which support them,

and in light of their consequences. In summary, the problems that prompted this study

include the background of contemporary issues in the professional development of lecturers

in Malaysia and the need to explore of how reflection can be facilitated in early profession.

Bibliografi

Elliott, J. (1991). Participatory action research for education change. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Foshay,A. (1998). Participatory action research in the nineties. Journal of The Education

Forum,

62,108-112.

Hanipah Hussin. (2004). Learning to be reflective: From theory to practices

Malaysia experiences. Penerbit Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. Tanjong Malim.

Kim, Paik Lah. (1994). Developing field inquiry models: A multidimensional approach.

An unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of Sydney.

Kemmis, S, and Mc Taggart, R. (1981). The participatory action research planner. Victoria:

Deakin

University.

Shulman, L.(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Strauss,A and Corbin, J (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory.procedures

and techniques. California: Sage Publication.

Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge Among Mechanical Engineering Lecturers

Documents

Transcript of Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge Among Mechanical Engineering Lecturers