An embedded fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for evaluating lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/stueduc

An embedded fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for evaluating lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning

MARK

⁎

Yaw Owusu-Agyemana, , Otu Larbi-Siawb, Boahemaa Brenyaa, Abena Anyidohoc a b c

Ghana Technology University College, PMB 100, Accra North, Tesano, Ghana Department of Economics, Ghana Technology University College, PMB 100, Accra North, Tesano, Ghana Department of Management Studies, Ghana Technology University College, PMB 100, Accra North, Tesano, Ghana

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Conceptions Constructivism Behaviourism Feedback Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process

This study evaluates the effects of Continuing Professional Development Programmes (CPDP) on the conceptions of lecturers in the teaching and learning processes in a higher education setting. An interpretive paradigm and mixed method of collecting and analysing data from participants was followed. Data for the study was gathered through survey among all the participants (N = 85) after which interviews were conducted among participants from the same population (n = 12). While interviews and observation served as the qualitative approach of gathering information from lecturers, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) was employed as a quantitative method to evaluate the impact of CPDP on conception changes in the teaching and learning processes of lecturers. The weights of the first four factors resulted in 73.16% rate (Buckley’s method) and 67.33% (Chang’s method). The results indicates that CPDP could be used to alter lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning and evaluated through an embedded FAHP.

1. Introduction The conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes in higher education continue to draw several discussions across institutions all over the world (Lindblom-Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi & Ashwin, 2006). Studies by several authors (Dall'Alba, 1991; Gow & Kember, 1993; Pratt, 1992; Prosser, Trigwell & Taylor 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992) in the early 1990s revealed the importance of the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes. Building on the works of these authors, this study suggests that Continuing Professional Development Programmes (CPDP) could be used to alter the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Training programmes provide lecturers with information on emerging trends in teaching and learning processes (Blair, 2016; Camburn & Han, 2015; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Eley, 2006; James & McCormick, 2009; Stewart, 2014) across different countries. Arguably, little evidence shows that adaptation to the conceptions of lecturers is the result of accumulated experiences (Boud, 1989; Gibbs, 1995; Norton, Richardson, Hartley, Newstead, & Mayes, 2005; Richardson, 2005; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2009) rather than a CPDP. In order to explore the relationship between CPDP and changes in the

⁎

conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes, an adapted conceptual model of Kember (1997) served as the theoretical underpinning of this study (see Fig. 1). Importantly, we provide justification for our argument in the theoretical background and discussion sections of this paper. The first section of this article considers the theoretical background of the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes in higher education settings. The authors argue that the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes are drawn primarily from the constructivist and behavioural theories. The second section discusses the method of gathering and analysing data to give credence to the adoption of a CPDP in changing the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes. A mixed method of gathering and analysing data for the study is discussed in the third and fourth sections of the study. An integrated model of explaining lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning by way of a CPDP (see Fig. 1) is evaluated following the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data gathered. The last section discusses implications of the study under three main domains; implications for theory, practice and further research.

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Owusu-Agyeman), [email protected] (O. Larbi-Siaw), [email protected] (B. Brenya), [email protected] (A. Anyidoho). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.07.001 Received 3 December 2016; Received in revised form 17 May 2017; Accepted 3 July 2017 Available online 13 July 2017 0191-491X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

Fig. 1. An adapted multiple-level categorisation model of lecturers’ conceptions of teaching. Source: Kember (1997)

2. Theoretical background

described as engaging students in the knowledge sharing processes (Barkely, 2009; Ho et al., 2001; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Kember, 2009; McCabe & O’Connor, 2014). Through engagement with students, lecturers provide the necessary resources and direction to students to enable them develop their intellectual abilities (see Fig. 1). In amplification of the learner-centred approach to teaching and learning, Boud (1989) posit that it defines the real self which is integrated into the process of observing, reasoning, feeling, and acting in a way that provides meaning to the actor. Learning theories such as: constructivism (Barkely, 2009; Keating, 2015; Loureiro & Caria, 2013; Sackney & Mergel, 2007; Yilmaz, 2008); humanism (Fasokun, Katahoire & Oduaran, 2005; Tennant & Pogson, 1995); transformative learning (Keegan, 2009; Mezirow, 2009; Taylor & Cranton, 2013) and experiential learning (Blair, 2016; Boud, 1989) support the learnercentred approach to teaching and learning. An important component of the learner-centred approach to teaching and learning is reflection among learners. Importantly, reflection explains the construction and reconstruction of theoretical and professional knowledge that are drawn from real life experiences and then transformed through engagement (Gibbs, 1995; McGarr & McCormack, 2014; Minott, 2010; Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006; Thorsen & DeVore, 2013; Usher, 2009). Similarly, Camburn and Han (2015) show that lecturers who reported on the effect of reflection were likely to improve on their teaching methods and skills over a period. Some post modern theorists (Biesta, 2012; Tennant, 2009) contend that the concept of learner-centred approach to teaching and learning only promotes the self as individualistic, unitary and promoting rational reflection that draws on the reasoning of the learner. While the debate on what theory is most suitable for teaching in higher education continues to linger on, no single theory provides all the answers to the burgeoning questions that arise from the pedagogic processes in the lecture hall. What more, the conceptions of lecturers’ in teaching and learning processes only serve as philosophical underpinning that could be altered momentarily depending on the method a lecturer would

The conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes could be viewed from two dominant theories; the constructivist (Barkely, 2009; Keating, 2015) and behavioural (Light & Cox, 2001; Mayes & De Freitas, 2004) theories. A number of authors (Camburn et al., 2015; Eley, 2006; Kember, 1997; , 2009; Minott, 2010; Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne & Nevgi, 2008; Pratt, 1992) have shown that conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes could be analysed through teacher-centred and learner-centred approaches. While the constructivist theory espouses the importance of learner-centred approach, the behavioural theory considers the teacher-centred approach as essential to the teaching and learning processes. This study however identifies technology enabled learning as an important factor that should be considered when using a CPDP to alter the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes. Using an adapted multiple-level categorization model (Kember, 1997) as shown in Fig. 1, the authors discuss the various categories of evaluating the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes through a CPDP. The impact of CPDP on lecturers especially where it involves short courses have been espoused by several authors (Van den Bergh, Ros & Beijaard, 2014, 2015). Additionally, Opfer and Pedder (2011) and Van den Bergh et al. (2015) consider CPDP as important because lecturers learn to incorporate new methods and techniques of teaching in their practice. Paradoxically, other studies (Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2008) have also shown that lecturers considered CPDP programmes as not impactful. The authors suggest in this study that the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes in higher education could be discussed under three main categories; teacher-centred approach, learner-centred approach and technology enhanced learning (see Fig. 1). 2.1. Learner-Centred approach to teaching The learner-centred approach to teaching and learning could be 47

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

the necessary factors that could support changes in the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes in a higher education setting. Framed along an interpretive paradigm, this study adopted a mixed method of gathering and analysing data from lectures who participated in a CPDP.

adopt to meet the knowledge needs of students. 2.2. Teacher-Centred approach to teaching, learning and assessment The concept of teacher-centred approach refers to the teaching and learning processes that are controlled by the lecturer through stimuli and responses to ensure that students follow instructions and also meet the various learning outcomes (Gibbs, 1995; ; Kember et al., 2000). Teacher-centred approach to teaching and learning as shown in Fig. 1 is widely held by behavioural theorists (Light et al., 2001; Mayes et al., 2004) as well as post modern theorists (Biesta, 2012; Tennant, 2009; Usher, 2009). The concept of teacher-centred approach to teaching and learning suggest that while social reality and cultural systems are constructed through a structured pattern, it should not be reduced to what individuals perceive as self controlled or self-managed (Tennant, 2009). Other authors (Blackie, Case & Jawitz, 2010) have likened the teacher-centred approach to the threshold concept that defines the process of teaching and learning through a transformative process. Additionally, the threshold concept enables learners to appreciate theories and practical lessons through an approach that makes it easier for the learners to relate the theories to their environment (Blackie et al., 2010). Importantly, what Tennant (2009) considers as ‘false consciousness’ derives from the assertion that what is socially and culturally constructed as reality cannot be subjected to individual perception of what and how reality should be defined. While lecturers create and co-create knowledge with students in a learning environment (Ho et al., 2001; ; Kember et al., 2000), not much has been established about the effect of their conceptions on the learning attainment of students. This however gives credence to the fact that the conceptions of lecturers influence their approach to teaching and learning rather than affect students’ understanding of the concepts and how they construct and reconstruct knowledge in the classroom.

3.1. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) incorporates different scenarios and processes that includes a hierarchy and assessment of elements based on a structure to provide explanations to a given phenomenon (Saaty, 1980). Importantly, Chen et al. (2012) suggest that the AHP plays an important role in problem analysis because it prevents the possibility of making decisions without having an array of cogent options to choose from. The advantage of the AHP is that, it improves early decision making through the inference of quantitative analysis and it is also useful for arranging intricate problem that varies from higher levels to lower levels (see David & Saaty, 2007). The Analytic Hierarchy Process involves 5 key steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Establishing a hierarchical structure. Establishing a pairwise comparison matrix. Calculating the eigenvalue and eigenfactor. Performing consistency tests and weight calculations. The consistency test examined whether the respondents’ questionnaire answers are consistent and transitive.

The first step in the AHP is the establishment of a hierarchy structure of assessment factors (see Table 1). The authors provided good ground for measuring changes in lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning after the CPDP by prioritising the response items through higher levels to lower levels of weight (see Table 1). To confirm the division of the assessment hierarchical structure into selection factors, a hierarchy of decision elements is structured into 3 levels, 14 factors, and then 42 indicators (see Table 1). The first level contained the gradual conception change approach. The second level grouped the programme evaluation factors; “Objectives”, “Content”, “Delivery”, “Motivation”, “Relevancy”, “Timeliness”, “Adequacy”, “Learning Outcomes”, “Quality”, “Clarity”, “Participation”, “Individual Learning”, “Teaching & Assessment” and “Conception Change”. The third level categorisation was the assessment indicators. These levels contained a total of 42 items. The consistency test in this study examined whether the constructed pair wise comparison matrix was a consistent matrix. The foundation devised for this test was the consistency index (C.I.; Eq. (1)) which ascertained the ordered structure as reliable. The basis for this test which is the fourth step in performing the AHP is the consistency ratio (C.R.; Eq. (1)).

2.3. Technology enhanced learning Modern systems of teaching and learning in higher education has evolved to include aspects of technology enhanced communication such as; video discussions, delivery of course content online and online assessment methods (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Borup, West & Graham, 2012; Burden, Aubusson, Brindley & Schuck, 2016; Hou, Sung & Chang, 2009; Prestridge, 2010). However, while some authors continue to stress the importance of teaching philosophies in higher education, very little has been done to redefine these philosophies in the context of technology mediated learning (Ertmer, 2005). Previous studies (see, Abbitt, 2011; Burden et al., 2016; Ertmer, 2005; Kinchin, 2012; McConnell, 2006; Rienties et al., 2013; Royle et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2009) have shown that developing the knowledge and skills of lecturers in technology application is important. This study argues that two dominant theories – constructivism and behaviourism defines teaching and learning processes in a technology enabled environment. Similarly, it is also important to identify the responses of students especially in a technology-mediated learning environment since they provide essential information on the impact of the lecturers’ teaching methods on their learning. The conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes have been identified as essential in promoting effective interaction between students and lecturers in a technology-mediated learning environment (Burden et al., 2016; Hou et al., 2009; Rienties et al., 2013). McConnell (2006) encapsulates the importance of integrating instructional technology adaptation and development in CPDPs as necessary to developing the knowledge and skills of lecturers who impact knowledge.

C.I. =

C.I. R.I.

(1)

As presented in the equation, n represents the level factor number and λmax confirms the eigenvalue of the comparison matrix. R . I. represents the random consistency index acquired from the various models, which varies according to the order of the matrix shown in Table 2. The consistency ratio (CR) also enabled the authors to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire used. All CR values attained were lower than 0.1; as a result, all the findings are deemed to be consistent. 3.2. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) The defects associated with the AHP is its bias which is due to its subjectivity and imprecise nature towards decision making, however the fuzzy set theory introduced by Zadeh in 1965 can enhance these challenges posed by the APH. Zadeh (1965) highlights the fluffy nature

3. Methods This section discusses the methods used by the authors in deriving 48

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

Ã= {(x , μà (x ))I x Є U}

Table 1 Hierarchy Structure of Assessment Factors.

Where à represents fuzzy set. μà (x ) termed as membership function, and U represents the universe of discourse. μà (x ) arrays between 0 and 1 termed as degree of membership. The conventional binary logic can be equated to the fuzzy set when its characteristics are emphasised. The value of the membership function can only be 0 or 1 in the conventional crisp set. The 2nd equation highlights its membership function. The 3rd to 6th represents the procedures of operation for the triangular fuzzy number. The defuzzification operation is done in relation to the three criteria of rationality, continuity to identify an appropriate point to represent the fuzzy number and ease of computation. The mean of maximum method, the center of gravity method, and the center of area method are the ordinarily used defuzzification methods (Li & Huang, 2008).

Items F1 Objectives Clear learning objectives Well stated objectives Learning objectives were met F2 Content Organisation of content Detailed organisation of content Content developed to suit learners F3 Delivery Excellent delivery pace Detailed and clear content delivery Effective content delivery F4 Motivation Motivation to learn Well motivated to learn Stimulation of interest to learn F5 Relevancy Relevance of subject Relevance of subject to teaching Relevance of subject to practice F6 Timeliness Timely and helpful feedback Useful feedback Timely feedback F7 Adequacy Adequate interactive session Effective discussion in class Clear intention to discuss issues F8 Learning Outcomes Defined learning outcomes Well discussed learning outcomes Focus on conception change F9 Quality Quality of subject delivery Cogent delivery of subjects Effective use of time F10 Clarity Clear explanation of topics Concise explanation of topics Excellent presentation of topics F11 Participation Involvement in learning Active learning encouraged Encouraged to contribute to discussions F12 Individual Learning Individual learning objectives marked Personal learning objective attained Discussion of individual objectives F13 Teaching and Assessment Teaching and assessment strategies New ways of teaching introduced New ways of assessment introduced F14 Conception Change Change in teaching New teaching knowledge acquired Weaknesses in teaching and learning marked

F1-1 F1-2 F1-3

F1

F2-1 F2-2 F2-3

F2

F3-1 F3-2 F3-3

F3

F4-1 F4-2 F4-3

F4

F5-1 F5-2 F5-3

F5

F6-1 F6-2 F6-3

F6

F7-1 F7-2 F7-3

F7

F8-1 F8-2 F8-3

F8

F9-1 F9-2 F9-3

F9

F10-1 F10-2 F10-3

F10

F11-1 F11-2 F11-3

F11

F12-1 F12-2 F12-3

F12

F13-1 F13-2 F13-3

F13

F14-1 F14-2 F14-3

F14

(2)

x−c

⎧a−c, c ≤ x ≤ a ⎪ μà (x ) = x − c , a ≤ x ≤ b ⎨a−c ⎪ 0, otherwise ⎩

(3)

A '⊕ B '= (a1 + a2,b1 + b2,c1 + c2)

(4)

A′⊖B′ = (a1 − a2,b1 − b2,c1 − c2)

(5)

A '⊗ B '= (a1 × a2 , b1 × b2 , c1 × c2)

(6)

A '÷ B '= (a1 ÷ a2 , b1 ÷ b2 , c1 ÷ c2)

(7)

Due to problems of inaccuracy, fuzziness and subjectivity associated with the AHP, the Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) is adopted as the analytical tool in this study. The FAHP provides an improved means to resolve the vagueness and blurriness of human thinking compared to AHP (Huang, 2012a, 2012b). During the FAHP calculation process, the authors adopted the column geometric mean method, ‘Buckley’s method’ (Buckley, 1985) and the extent analysis method, “Chang’s method” (Chang, 1996) to calculate the weights. The phases are illustrated below Phase 1. Establish a hierarchical structure Phase 2. Design a questionnaire: Based on the established hierarchical structure (see Table 1), we designed a questionnaire that could be analysed based on a comparison of the various indicators from the two different structures. Sequel to the hierarchical structure method, we used the semantic description method to allow the respondents to express their assessments and subjective judgments of the programme fully. Additionally, we adopted the triangular fuzzy number to express semantic judgment values. A 9point scale was therefore used to describe the relativity, as shown in Table 3.

1/n Phase 3. Establishes positive fuzzy reciprocal matrix

A= [aij]

(8)

where aij = (lij, mij, uij,), lij, mij, anduij represents the lower limit, peak, and upper limit of triangular fuzzy numbers:

Table 2 Random Index (R.I.) Values. N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

R.I.

0

0

0.58

0.90

1.12

1.24

1.32

1.41

1.45

1.49

Table 3 The relative importance of fuzzy ratio scales (Huang, 2012a; Huang, 2012b).

of the human reasoning and perception of its environment. Fuzzy logic helps to label and describe the shortcomings of the traditional theory. It also makes use of the binary logic that makes it possible to define various phenomena that hither-to could not be revealed through other analysis. The model of the membership function of the fuzzy logic helps to scrutinize uncertainty and fuzziness in a way comparable to the human language. The fuzzy steps are illustrated below: 49

Relative Importance

Linguistic Variables

Triangular Fuzzy Number

Cij = 9 Cij = 8 Cij = 7 Cij = 6 Cij = 5 Cij = 4 Cij = 3 Cij = 2 Cij = 1

Absolute Importance Intermediate value Very Strong Importance Intermediate value Essential Importance Intermediate value Weak Importance Intermediate value Equal Importance

(8,9,9) (7,8,9) (6,7,8) (5,6,7) (4,5,6) (3,4,5) (2,3,4) (1,2,3) (1,1,2)

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

1 , ∀ i, j = 1,2, …, n aij

aij =

(10)

teaching, teacher-centred approach to teaching and learning and assessment and technology enhanced teaching and learning. The questions were mostly derived from the two key theoretical underpinnings; the constructivist and behavioural theories that could serve as the basis for altering the instructional skills of lecturers through a CPDP. The study was guided by the following Research Questions (RQs): (RQ) 1: What learning theories explain lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in higher education? (RQ) 2: How can a structured CPDP support lecturers to redefine their conception of teaching and learning through a gradual conception change process? (RQ) 3: How can changes in lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning lead to improved instructional knowledge and skills in higher education?

(11)

3.4. Participants and programme structure

Phase 4. The technique is to administer geometric means process to assimilate the sentiments of respondents.

aij = (a1ij ⊗ a 2ij ⊗ …. ⊗ a nij)1/n

(9)

where aij represents the triangular fuzzy number in the column and the row of the fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix and a inj forms the assessment value of respondent N. Phase 5. Proceeds to calculate the fuzzy weight (1) Method 1: The column geometric mean method

wi = ri ⊗ (r1 ⊗ r2 ⊗ …… ⊗ rn)−1

ri = (ai1 ⊗ ai2 ⊗ …… ⊗

a1in)1/n

where wi is the fuzzy weight value of each column in the fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix and ri represents the geometric mean of the triangular fuzzy number.

The number of participants in the CPDP was 85 who were drawn from four different campuses of the institution. However, 80 participants from the faculties of Information Technology Business, Informatics and Engineering consented to providing feedback on the two-day programme. The total number of female participants was 14 which represented 17.5% while the number of male participants was 66 and this represented 82.5% of the total number of participants. The number of new lecturers who participated in the programme was 19 and this represented 23.7% of the total number of participants.

(2) Method 2: The extent analysis method

Si =

m

∑ j= 1

m

∑ j= 1 ⎡ n ⎢∑i = 1 ⎣

n i= 1

m

∑

m j= 1mj,

Mgij ⊗ [∑

Mgij = [∑

m j= 1

l j,

−1

n

∑j = 1

M j gi⎤ ⎥ ⎦

∑ j= 1

Mgij ]−1 m

∑ j= 1

(12)

uj]

⎡ 1 1 1 ⎤ , m , m =⎢ m ⎥ ∑ j=1 ui ∑ j=1 mi ∑ j=1 li ⎦ ⎣

(13)

3.5. Data collection (14) Data was gathered using questionnaire, interview schedule and observation during the training programme. While all participants were provided with the survey instrument to complete, we adopted purposive sampling method to select 12 interviewees (4 from each faculty across the four campuses) to provide us with detailed information on the impact of the programme on their conceptions of teaching and learning. Analysis of the data was done using COMPASS fs/QCA and STATISTICA software, while the hermeneutic process sought to develop the themes, concepts and theories from the interview and observation schedules. Section 4 provides detailed information on the data analysis performed by the authors. We provide justification for the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of gathering and analysing data in the study of lecturers’ conceptions as evidenced in the work of several authors (Butcher & Stoncel, 2012; Clarke et al., 2002; Korthagen, 2010; Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne & Nevgi, 2007).

j (j = 1, 2, …..,m) rewhere Si is the fuzzy weight in matrix m and Mgi presents triangular fuzzy number calculated after equating the questionnaires. After each indicator comparison, a minimum was engendered for each group (Eq. (15)). Assume that d'(Ai) represents of each minimum group (Eq. (16)), and develop a set with the minimums of each group (Eq. (17)).

V(M≥M1, M2, ……,Mk ) = minV(M≥Mi ), I= 1, 2, ……,k

(15)

d*(Ai) = min V(Si ≥ Sk )

(16)

W’ = (d’(A1), d’(A2),

……,d’(An)) T

(17)

Standardize the minimums after comparison to acquire the defuzzification weights for every indicator (Eq. (18)).

W= (d’(A1), d’(A2), ……,d’(An)) T

(18)

3.6. Validity and reliability of the datasets

Phase 6. Defuzzification: Convert the fuzzy weights into non-fuzzy values (Eq. (19)).

a+b+c DFij = 3

The validity of this study was considered as essential because it ensures that the conclusions drawn from the findings are based on universally accepted scientific procedures (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Gray, 2009). Additionally, the authors ensured that the reliability of the research instruments as well as procedures were in agreement with the standard procedures in conducting research at the institution where the data were collected.

(19)

a, b, and c are the lower limit (lij) the peak, (mij) and the upper limit (uij) of the triangular fuzzy number. Phase 7. Perform normalization (Eq. (20)) to obtain the weights for each aspect and indicator.

NWi =

DFij

∑

DFij

4. Results

NWi (20)

4.1. Weight calculation

Phase 8. To complete the procedure, a fuzzy hierarchical tandem is performed to calculate the global weights of all indicators.

To obtain the weights and sequences of each given aspect and its indicator, firstly the column geometric mean method (Buckley’s method) was performed and the ensuing results are displayed in Table 4 below. Consequently, the weights and sequences for each factor and indicator were re-run using the extent analysis method (Chang’s method) as shown in Table 5. Using both the Buckley’s and Chang’s methods in Tables 4 and 5 the items expected to impact on the

3.3. Research questions In order to explore the underlying features of the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes, three key domains were developed and used. These domains were; learner-centred approach to 50

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

Table 4 Local weight and global weight for each criterion (Buckley’s method). Aspecta

Local Weightsb

Ranking

Indicatora

Local Weightsb

Ranking

Global Weightsc

Ranking

F1

0.0032

9

F1-1 F1-2 F1-3

0.045 0.043 0.049

2 3 1

0.1817 0.1782 0.1781

16 31 32

F2

0.0592

6

F2-1 F2-2 F2-3

0.059 0.056 0.053

1 2 3

0.1823 0.1803 0.1796

13 21 24

F3

0.0022

13

F3-1 F3-2 F3-3

0.031 0.036 0.039

3 2 1

0.1764 0.1765 0.1759

40 39 42

F4

0.1178

5

F4-1 F4-2 F4-3

0.064 0.061 0.065

2 3 1

0.1801 0.1821 0.1828

22 15 11

F5

0.1995

1

F5-1 F5-2 F5-3

0.078 0.085 0.082

3 1 2

0.1840 0.1856 0.1851

6 1 2

F6

0.0012

11

F6-1 F6-2 F6-3

0.048 0.035 0.033

1 2 3

0.1814 0.1790 0.1775

17 29 34

F7

0.0191

8

F7-1 F7-2 F7-3

0.045 0.054 0.065

3 2 1

0.1798 0.1811 0.1805

23 18 20

F8

0.0009

12

F8-1 F8-2 F8-3

0.037 0.032 0.039

2 3 1

0.1808 0.1792 0.1762

19 28 41

F9

0.0528

7

F9-1 F9-2 F9-3

0.053 0.055 0.049

2 1 3

0.1793 0.1794 0.1795

25 26 27

F10

0.1625

4

F10-1 F10-2 F10-3

0.068 0.066 0.061

1 2 3

0.1835 0.1827 0.1822

8 12 14

F11

0.0022

10

F11-1 F11-2 F11-3

0.042 0.039 0.037

1 2 3

0.1771 0.1777 0.1772

36 33 35

F12

0.0098

14

F12-1 F12-2 F12-3

0.023 0.018 0.033

2 1 3

0.1769 0.1768 0.1785

37 38 30

F13

0.1899

2

F13-1 F13-2 F13-3

0.070 0.077 0.080

3 2 1

0.1839 0.1844 0.1850

7 5 3

F14

0.1797

3

F14-1 F14-2 F14-3

0.076 0.079 0.072

2 1 3

0.1832 0.1846 0.1831

9 4 10

a b c

For an explanation of the codes, please refer to Table 1. Local weight is determined based on judgments of a single criterion. Global weight is determined by multiplying the weight of the criteria.

of Assessment Introduced (F13-3) were also important. Again, the results showed 3-2-1 (Buckley’s method) and 3-1-2 (Chang’s method). The third highest factor, ‘(F14) Conception Change’, revealed the following results for the items; “Change in teaching (F14-1)”, New Teaching Knowledge Acquired (F14-2)” and “Weaknesses in Teaching and Learning Marked (F14-3)”. The ranking revealed the following; 2-13 (Buckley’s method) and 3-1-2 (Chang’s method). Categorically, the remaining factor rankings were identical, showing the ranking of the factors on the Buckley and Chang’s method by way of their impact on the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes. Significantly, the top ten (10) rankings of the factors obtained by way of the Buckley and Chang’s methods were identical in results. The indicators in order of rank were; “Relevance of Subject to Teaching (F5-2)”, “Relevance of Subject to Work (F5-3)”, “New Ways of Assessment Introduced (F13-3)”, New teaching knowledge Acquired (F14-2), “New Ways of Teaching Introduced (F13-2)”, “Relevance of Subject (F5-1)”, “Teaching and Assessment Strategies (F13-1)”, Clear

conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes in an HEI setting were computed. The analysis of lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning using the F/AHP by way of the Buckley’s and Chang’s methods in the weight sequences for the indicators revealed marginal differences in the results. Importantly, the top three factors as shown in Tables 4 and 5 are; “Relevancy (F5)”, “Teaching & Assessment (F13)” and “Conception Change (F14)” based on the local weights for both methods in order of rank (Buckley and Chang). The highest ranking factor – “(F5) Relevancy”, from the two methods’ show that, “Relevance of Subject (F5-1)”, “Relevance of Subject to Teaching (F5-2)” and “Relevance of Subject to Work (F5-3)” ranked 3-1-2 on both Buckley and Chang’s methods. Subsequently, the second ranking factor – “(F13) Teaching & Assessment”, also revealed that the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes are important in higher education settings. The results showed that, “Teaching and Assessment Strategies (F13-1)”, “New Ways of Teaching Introduced (F13-2)” and “New Ways 51

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

Table 5 Local weight and global weight for each criterion (Chang’s method). Aspecta

Local Weightsb

Ranking

Indicatora

Local Weightsb

Ranking

Global Weightsc

Ranking

F1

0.0152

9

F1-1 F1-2 F1-3

0.042 0.039 0.046

2 3 1

0.1787 0.1767 0.1866

16 31 32

F2

0.0711

6

F2-1 F2-2 F2-3

0.058 0.056 0.053

1 2 3

0.1808 0.1763 0.1761

13 21 24

F3

0.00818

14

F3-1 F3-2 F3-3

0.024 0.020 0.014

1 2 3

0.1712 0.1716 0.1709

40 39 42

F4

0.0867

5

F4-1 F4-2 F4-3

0.057 0.056 0.059

2 3 1

0.1794 0.1798 0.1808

22 15 11

F5

0.1885

1

F5-1 F5-2 F5-3

0.067 0.071 0.069

3 1 2

0.1818 0.1824 0.1822

6 1 2

F6

0.0133

11

F6-1 F6-2 F6-3

0.035 0.031 0.029

1 2 3

0.1785 0.1723 0.1721

17 33 34

F7

0.0311

8

F7-1 F7-2 F7-3

0.045 0.048 0.050

3 2 1

0.1767 0.1788 0.1778

23 18 19

F8

0.0129

12

F8-1 F8-2 F8-3

0.028 0.026 0.034

2 3 1

0.1754 0.1742 0.1711

20 30 41

F9

0.0643

7

F9-1 F9-2 F9-3

0.056 0.058 0.050

2 1 3

0.1754 0.1751 0.1749

25 26 27

F10

0.1345

4

F10-1 F10-2 F10-3

0.060 0.058 0.057

1 2 3

0.1812 0.1810 0.1807

8 12 14

F11

0.01411

10

F11-1 F11-2 F11-3

0.040 0.037 0.035

1 2 3

0.1718 0.1741 0.1723

36 29 35

F12

0.0098

1

F12-1 F12-2 F12-3

0.026 0.022 0.019

1 2 3

0.1715 0.1714 0.1743

37 38 28

F13

0.1768

2

F13-1 F13-2 F13-3

0.061 0.066 0.064

3 1 2

0.1817 0.1818 0.1821

7 5 3

F14

0.17351

3

F14-1 F14-2 F14-3

0.060 0.063 0.062

3 1 2

0.1815 0.1820 0.1813

9 4 10

a b c

For an explanation of the codes, please refer to Table 1. Local weight is determined based on judgments of a single criterion. Global weight is determined by multiplying the weight of the criteria.

explanation of topics (F10-1), “Change in teaching (F14-1)”, “Weaknesses in Teaching and Learning Marked (F14-3)”. Conversely, the rankings for the remaining indicators differed slightly. The authors however noted that the cause of the aberration in sequence is subject to differences in computation logic between the two methods. The results as shown on Tables 4 and 5 suggest that the ranking of the first four items based on the highest weights were; “Relevancy”, “Teaching & Assessment”, “Conception Change” and “Clarity” respectively. Significantly, the total weights for the four factors showed 0.7316 (Buckley’s method) and 0.6733 (Chang’s method). Additionally, the least important factors as shown by the two approaches were; “Timeliness”, “Learning Outcomes”, “Delivery” and “Individual Leaning”. This further suggests that the factors were not significant elements in effecting the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes through a CPDP. The total weight for the four least important factors were 0.0141 (Buckley’s method) and 0.0442 (Chang’s method). We espouse the implications of our results (based on the

Buckley’s and Chang’s methods) in the discussion section of this study.

4.2. Qualitative data analysis In order to develop further argument on the key factors that influence conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes in a higher education setting, the authors carried out interviews among some selected participants. Furthermore, the feedback from lecturers (see Avalos, 2011; Bell et al., 2010; Eley, 2006; James et al., 2009; Minott, 2010) were meant to assess the impact of the CPDP on their conceptions of teaching and learning. Four key domains: teaching and learning effectiveness; lecturers’ conceptions of assessment systems; technology enhanced learning and lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning served as the basis for analysing the qualitative data. We provide detailed information regarding the CPDP and show how the various themes relate to expected changes in the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes (see Appendices A and B). 52

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

4.2.3. Lecturers’ conceptions of assessment systems While several studies have linked the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes, this study identifies assessment systems as essential to the process of aligning lecturers’ conceptions to broad institutional teaching and learning philosophies. One of the participants opined that, I sparsely connect my teaching and learning approach to assessment systems but I now consider it as very important. She added that, lecturers should also connect the institution’s philosophies with learning and classroom achievement as well as test construction and assessment systems (BUSP2). Another lecturer stated that,

4.2.1. Teaching, learning and assessment effectiveness As shown in Appendices A and B and in line with the objectives of the programme, the facilitators discussed with participants the different theories that serve as foundation for teaching and learning in higher education. Regarding the opinion of the participants on the teaching and learning effectiveness session, a participant opined that; the sessions on the principles of quality teaching and effective lesson delivery, preparing for teaching, effective learning and classroom achievement exposed us to important concepts of teaching and learning in higher education (INFP1). Importantly, CPDPs are necessary for purposes of evaluating conception changes among lecturers and to assess the overall impact of the programme on the participants. This was evident in the response of participants who completed the survey instrument. Thus, the results from the fuzzy analysis revealed that the objectives were well stated to the lecturers and they understood the rationale for the programme. Another participant stated that,

the sessions on creating and administering multiple choice questions, developing appropriate test item and evaluation of teaching and learning processes has changed my thinking about my professional practice. However, I consider some factors of teacher-centred approach as important for promoting quality teaching and learning in the laboratories (ENGP2).

the topics provided contemporary teaching and learning techniques which includes developing learning teams in class so that weak students could have better understanding of the topics. However, we would have appreciated a detailed presentation on effective teaching in the engineering field (ENGP1).

One of the participants stated that, I consider the sessions on developing marking scheme for essay type questions, setting multiple choice questions as very useful in our professional practice (BUSP3). He added that, knowing the strengths of all your students and developing different sets of questions could be considered as an important aspect of the learnercentred approach to teaching and learning (BUSP4). The authors however considered assessment methods as part of the conception re-organisation of lecturers in higher education settings. The views of the interview respondents were echoed by the survey respondents who indicated that teaching, learning and assessments were important in the conception change process.

Some lecturers from the engineering faculty considered a blend of teacher-centred and the learner-centred approach to the teaching of laboratory session especially because they require students to observe and follow specific instructions from the lecturer. A participant stated that, the use of the specific term − learner-centred teaching and the concepts rather emphasises changing trends and the need for lecturers to accept change and develop better methods of teaching (BUSP1). Lecturers from all the three faculties were particularly interested in the theories of learning that emphasised either the learner-centred or teacher-centred approaches to teaching in their specific disciplines. Some identified the teacher-centred approach as important especially during laboratory and practical field sessions. Another area that drew several points of discussion was the management of large class sizes as compared to small class sizes. Most of the lecturers were of the opinion that while small class sizes could help promote a learner-centred approach to teaching and learning, teaching a large class size could present some challenges to this approach.

4.2.4. Conception change process through CPDP The CPDP also highlighted the objectives of management of the institution in building lecturers conception to accommodate the learner-centred approach to teaching and learning as an institutional philosophy that needed to be embraced by all lecturers. In the words of one of the institution’s management members, “modern teaching and learning has moved from identifying lecturers as sole agents in the process of knowledge formulation and reformulation to a domain where students are recognised as co-creators of knowledge that is shared through a mutually built atmosphere”. Although a challenge with this assertion lies in how students could be considered as co-creators of knowledge in HEIs, it is important for lecturers to control their class. While the final CPDP sought to develop the knowledge and skills of lecturers in the construction of assessment systems and technology mediated learning structures, previous CPDP content and learning outcomes were often referred to in the class. The facilitators also added that although they would not prescribe specific philosophies to universities to adopt, the learner-centred approach could not be overlooked in modern educational systems, hence, the need to inform lecturers of their importance during such training programmes. The feedback from the lecturers regarding the impact of the CPDP on their conceptions of teaching and learning also produced different responses. A participant stated that, “shorter durations should be designed for each day’s activities preferably 9:00am to 2:00 pm. This will help participants to concentrate and participate fully” (INFP2). In encapsulating the disadvantage of compressing the various sessions over a two-day period, a participant opined that, “the duration of the training was very short and it did not allow for enough engagement, questions and answers session. The programme could be organised over a five-day period rather than two days” (ENGP3). One of the participants also remarked, “additional time should be provided for more hands-on sessions which will help each lecturer demonstrate the skills required by the facilitators of the programme” (INFP3). The views of the lecturers showed factors such as; time allocated to the various sessions, extensive practical sessions and frequent organisation of CPDPs are essential changing the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes. These views were also shared by the survey respondents who indicated that content, relevancy

4.2.2. Technology enhanced learning and lecturers’ conceptions The introduction of technology-mediated learning structures continues to shape the theoretical positions of lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. The discussions during the programme revealed that effective student-lecturer interaction in a technology-mediated environment required; management support, smooth internet connectivity, a robust learning platform that is interactive and user support services. A participant opined during the discussions that, the use of internet facility for the purposes of learning by students for learning purposes rather than downloading other materials in an online learning environment was very important (INFP2). The views of the lecturers showed that in addition to theoretical factors, lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in a technology-mediated environment are influenced by their knowledge of computer usage, online platform and support they receive from management of the institution. Nonetheless, in theorising the role of technology- mediated processes in lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, the constructivist and behavioural theories are essential. The teaching environment therefore shapes a teacher's approach to teaching by its curriculum design and institutional ethos (Ramsden 1992; Kember & Kwan 2002). Additionally, the preparedness of students to undertake rigorous activities as well as understand the demands of the course is influenced by the lecturers approach to teaching and learning. Similarly, the survey responses yielded high lecturers’ feedback on indicators such as objectives, motivation, relevancy, participation conception change and teaching and assessment. 53

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

reformulating their conceptions through CPDP programmes include: regulating the teaching and learning methods to satisfy the learning needs of students; improving individual teaching effectiveness as well as aligning course content and delivery methods with learning outcomes and altering the teaching and learning methods to meet emerging trends. Contrastingly, the behavioural theories (see Light et al., 2001; Mayes et al., 2004; Tennant, 2009; Usher, 2009) are equally necessary in shaping the conceptions of lecturers. The authors show in this study that the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes that are rooted in the behavioural theories are also very important. This is because, they define how lecturers could possibly reinforce the behaviour of learners especially in the engineering and sciences discipline through observation. Other advantages of the behavioural theory include; supporting the selection of stimulus that would drive students’ enthusiasm to learn and leading students to develop mastery in using technology to enhance learning. The authors however opine that while constructive approach to teaching and learning provide evidence for the adoption of a learner-centred approach to teaching and learning, the behavioural theories establish that lecturers are able to properly integrate their personal goals and the learning outcomes to meet the learning needs of students.

and motivation are critical success components of CPDP. Juxtaposing the views of management with those of the lecturers, we show in the concluding section that CPDP could actually serve as a tool in shaping the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes to fit the teaching philosophies of an institution. 5. Discussion and implications of the study Previous studies of conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes have revealed some variation (see, Kember & Kwan, 2002; Prosser et al., 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). These range from teaching as presenting or imparting structured knowledge to teaching as facilitating understanding and bringing about conceptual change and intellectual development (see Fig. 1). However, the results revealed that the sequence of the four items with the highest weights of all the factors were “Relevancy”, “Teaching & Assessment”, “Conception Change” and “Clarity” respectively. The total weights for these four factors were 0.7316 (Buckley’s method) and 0.6733 (Chang’s method). The least important items among the factors considered by lectures in anticipation of gradual conception change through CPDP were “Timeliness”, “Learning Outcomes”, “Delivery” and “Individual Leaning”. The total weight for these four factors was 0.0141 (Buckley’s method) and 0.0442 (Chang’s method). The results obtained from the FAHP and the interviews suggest that the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes are not limited to the core teaching processes in HEIs. Factors such as, technology enhanced learning, assessment methods, preparation of course outlines and the integration of appropriate strategies when teaching large and small class sizes are also very essential. Beyond these considerations are also the importance of developing the capacities of lecturers to demonstrate knowledge and skills in deploying courses and assessment systems online. Additionally, while many lecturers may be provided with the practical knowledge and skills of applying technology-mediated tools and resources in an online learning environment, it is essential to provide them with the theoretical foundation through such gradual conception change exercises. This study again revealed a connection between institutional structures that are aimed at developing lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning through CPDPs without using administrative directives and coercive actions. A member of the institution’s management stated that, “the CPDP was adopted as an effective way of communicating the philosophies of the university to the lecturers regarding gradual conception change in the teaching and learning processes. She added that ‘through the CPDP, lecturers are able to openly discuss and critically evaluate the effectiveness of the various conceptions, understand them and then develop a teaching and learning strategy that reflects the learnercentred approach’. The role of managers of educational institutions in developing the knowledge, skills and attitudes of lecturers is very important to their educational development in general (Taylor et al., 2009). Moreover, programme organizers could identify possible areas for staff development and instructional improvement from the information obtained from the Faculty (see Avalos, 2011; Bell & Mladenovic, 2013; East, 2015; Eley, 2006; James & McCormick, 2009; Kember, 2009; Minott, 2010). While the authors suggest changes in the conceptions of lecturers in the teaching and learning processes to reflect growing knowledge needs through constructivism, other theories especially, behaviourism contribute to providing lecturers with very important teaching philosophies. We present the implications of our study in three main domains; implications for theory, practice and future research.

5.2. Implications for practice The effect of the CPDP could be described as the enhancement of teaching and learning regime that is characterised by interaction between lecturers’ experiences and expectations on one hand and their evaluation, reflections and perceptions on the other hand (Shay, 2015; Trowler & Cooper, 2002). What this means is that in a learner-centred teaching and learning environment, feedback through reflection (Gibbs, 1995; Nicol et al., 2006; Thorsen et al., 2013; Van den Bergh et al., 2014) is very essential. This is because students are able to relate their experiences and knowledge to the concepts they are introduced to within the learning environment. Importantly, the learner-centred approach limits lecturers’ imposition of social reality that needs to be followed by students through observation, stimulus reaction and repetition of work processes without self-management and self-control. The effect of mediating technology in modern teaching and learning activities (see; Royle, Stager & Traxler, 2014; Rienties, Brouwer & LygoBaker, 2013) could possibly influence the conceptions of lecturers in teaching and learning processes. Furthermore, because most technology enhanced learning systems are developed to provide students with the necessary tools to control their learning, they obtain new knowledge through the online learning environment. However, the survey responses revealed that factors such as timeliness, learning outcomes, delivery methods and individual learning approaches do not impact on conception change among lecturers.

5.3. Implications for future research Although this study focused on proposing an alternative way of implementing changes in the conceptions of lecturers through a CPDP, we limited our study to only lecturers drawn from three faculties in an HEI. Future studies could explore the possibility of conducting similar research in other learning environment with different disciplines.

Disclosure of potential conflict of interest

5.1. Implications for theory

Conflict of interest

The study revealed that in the training of lecturers, the benefits of

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

54

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

Appendix A. Conceptualised structure of the CPDP for day one

Session/Topic

Description of the activity

Duration of the session

Objectives of the session in relation to changes in lecturers' conceptions

Session 1: Preparing for Participants were taken through the different learning theories and the principles of teaching in effective teaching and learning I higher education. This session was interspersed with questions and discussions.

2h including questions and answers

Session 2: Purpose and This session focused on the purpose and principles of assessment in higher education. Principles of assessment in higher education

2h including questions and answers

The session focused on the procedures for preparing course outlines for teaching. The facilitators discussed the various theories of learning and how they influence the design of courses and course outlines.

3h including questions and answers

Session 4: Principles of Participants were introduced to the basic processes of test construction using the different approaches to classroom test construction. achievement and test construction

2h including questions and answers

This session served to provide lecturers with the different theories that could trigger a change in conception in the teaching and learning approaches of lecturers to be in line with the university’s teaching philosophy. The constructivist and behavioural approaches were extensively discussed. The participants were introduced to different principles of assessment design in higher education. The objective of the session was to reorient lecturers on the need to connect formative and summative assessments with their teaching and learning processes. The goal of the session was to inform participants of the need to integrate interactive session as well as feedback mechanisms in the teaching and learning processes. Through series of questions and answers in the form of discussion, the lecturers were provided with essential information that could cause changes in the teaching approach Lecturers were challenged to understand the differences in the comprehension and analysis of content among students and the importance of integrating the various levels of test construction in the development of questions. The main thrust of this session was the discussion of the importance of multiple-choice questions in the development of test items. At the end of the session most lecturers noted that it was relevant to provide students with a spread of the course content from which they could choose their answers. After engaging participants through discussion on the relevance of providing multiple test items in examinations, they were tasked to develop multiple-choice questions individually. The task ensured lecturers developed assessments using defined set of principles.

Session 3: Preparing for Teaching II: Preparing course outlines

Session 5: incorporating multiple-choice assessment

The participants were introduced to the various 2h principles of developing multiple-choice assessment. including questions and answers

Session 6: Practical Work on constructing multiple-choice tests

The participants were taken through the various 3 h of hands principles of developing multiple-choice tests using on practical different methods. work

Appendix B. Conceptualised structure of the CPDP for day two

Session/Topic

Description of activity

Session 1: Principles of quality teaching and effective lesson delivery

Participants were taken through the principles of quality teaching and effective lesson delivery. The focus was on the learner-centred approach to teaching and learning

Session 2: Constructing essay-type tests

Duration of the session

Objectives of the session aimed at producing changes in conceptions

While the facilitators did not indicate that a specific approach to teaching and learning could lead to quality and effective teaching and learning processes, what the participants were encouraged to do was to identify the students as the subjects in the process. The process of assessment in higher education 3h The facilitators showed participants the various should not be to examine how students including methods and principles of constructing essay-type memorise theories and concepts but particularly, tests. They also told the participant to ensure that questions the test construction principles were also adhered to. and answers how they understand them and explain them. This was the main reason for the introduction of this session in the training programme and lecturers were expected to have the practical experience in developing essay-type tests. 55

3h including questions and answers

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

Session 3: Strategies and techniques of teaching: Teaching small class sizes

The participants were taken through strategies and techniques of teaching small class sizes

3h including questions and answers

Session 4: Constructing computation assessments

Participants were introduced to the various processes and principles in constructing computation assessments.

3h including questions and answers

Session 5: Preparing marking schemes (Essay & Computation)

The participants were introduced to the various principles of preparing marking schemes for essay and computation type questions.

3h including questions and answers

Session 6: Marking Essay The participants were taken through the various 3h and Computation tests principles of developing multiple-choice tests using including different methods. questions and answers Session 7: Strategies and techniques of teaching: Teaching large class sizes

The facilitator touched on the strategies and techniques of teaching large class sizes.

3h including questions and answers

Participants were introduced to the basic techniques of teaching small class sizes. The object of this session was to expose participants to the techniques and principles of teaching small class size and it was also meant to cause a conception change. The session informed lecturers that the construction of computation assessment in higher education should be done to allow students to develop their analytical skills in computation. The purpose of the session was to introduce lecturers to the construction of marking scheme that sought to draw on the ability of students to produce answers that derive from applied theories and concepts in specific disciplines. Participants were also implored to understand the diverse comprehension abilities of their students when developing marking schemes. The participants were introduced to effective methods of marking essay and computation tests that did not rely solely on the subjective consideration of the lecturers but more importantly on the accepted rules in marking. This session introduced participants to the basic techniques of teaching large class sizes. Additionally, participants were exposed to the techniques and principles of teaching large class size that could be very effective and draw on contributions from all students.

Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655. Chen, S. M., Li, R., & Tang, B. Q. (2012). Group-buying website evaluation based on combination of TOPSIS, entropy weight and FAHP. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 7(7), 130–139. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. Dall'Alba, G. (1991). ‘Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching'. Research and Development in Higher Education, 13, 293–297. David, J., & Saaty, D. (2007). Use analytic hierarchy process for project selection. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 6(4), 22–29. [Accessed on 15/05/2017. Retrieved from] http://dschoenherr.fatcow.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/analytic_ hierarchy_process.pdf. East, K. (2015). The meaning and utility of institutional teaching evaluations. Studying Teacher Education, 11(3), 312–326. Eley, M. E. (2006). Teachers' conceptions of teaching: And the making of specific decisions in planning to teach. Higher Education, 51, 191–214. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. Fasokun, T. O., Katahoire, A., & Oduaran, A. B. (2005). African Perspectives on learning: The psychology of adult learning in Africa. South Africa: Pearson. Gibbs, G. (1995). How can promoting excellent teachers promote excellent teaching? Innovations in Teaching and Training International, 32(1), 74–84. Gray, D. E. (2009). Doing research in the real world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42, 143–169. Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2009). Exploring the behavioural patterns of an online knowledge-sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem solving strategy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 101–108. Huang, H. C. (2012a). Decision-making model for convention site selection. Advanced Materials Research, 538(541), 895–900. Huang, H. C. (2012b). A novel site assessment model based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for water recreation activities. Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences, 4(21), 72–81. James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(7), 973–982. Keating, S. B. (2015). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Keegan, R. (2009). What form transforms? A constructive developmental approach to transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words. New York: Routledge. Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education. Instructional Science, 28(5/6), 469–490.

References Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300. Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10–20. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.tate.2010.08.007. Barkely, E. (2009). Student Engagement Techniques: A handbook for college faculty. New York: Jossey Bass. Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2013). How tutors understand and engage with reflective practices. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 14(1), 1–11. Bell, A., Mladenovic, R., & Segara, R. (2010). Supporting the reflective practice of tutors: What do tutors reflect on? Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 57–70. Biesta, G. J. J. (2012). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the teacher? Phenomenology & Practice, 6(2), 35–49. Blackie, M. A. L., Case, J. M., & Jawitz, J. (2010). Student centredness: The link between transforming students and transforming ourselves. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 637–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.491910. Blair, D. J. (2016). Experiential learning for teacher professional development at historic sites. Journal of Experiential Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1053825916629164. Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116. Borup, J., West, R., & Graham, C. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. Boud, D. (1989). Some competing traditions in experiential learning. In S. Weil, & I. McGill (Eds.), Making sense of experiential learning: Diversity in theory and practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247. Burden, K., Aubusson, P., Brindley, S., & Schuck, S. (2016). Changing knowledge, changing technology: Implications for teacher education futures. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(1), 4–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1125432. Butcher, J., & Stoncel, D. (2012). The impact of a Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching in Higher Education on university lecturers appointed for their professional expertise at a teaching-led university: ‘It’s made me braver’. International Journal for Academic Development, 17, 149–162. Camburn, E. M., & Han, S. W. (2015). Infrastructure for teacher reflection and instructional change: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 511–533. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European

56

Studies in Educational Evaluation 55 (2017) 46–57

Y. Owusu-Agyeman et al.

Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203-220. Prestridge, S. (2010). ICT professional development for teachers in online forums: Analysing the role of discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 252–258. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). ‘A phenomenographic study of academics' conceptions of science learning and teaching'. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217–223. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students' approaches to learning and teachers' approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25, 673–680. Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on teachers' beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 122–131. Royle, K., Stager, S., & Traxler, J. (2014). Teacher development with mobiles: Comparative critical factors. Prospects, 44, 29–42. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sackney, L., & Mergel, B. (2007). Contemporary learning theories, instructional design and leadership. In J. M. Burger, C. F. Webber, & P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent leadership. Dordrecht: Springer. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (1992). ‘Conceptions of teaching held by academic Teachers'. Higher Education, 24, 93–111. Shay, S. (2015). Curriculum reform in higher education: A contested space. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(4), 431–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015. 1023287. Stewart, M. (2014). Making sense of a teaching programme for university academics: Exploring the longer-term effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 89–98. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.006. Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2013). A theory in progress? Issues in transformative learning theory. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 33–47. Taylor, L., & Rege Colet, N. (2009). Making the shift from faculty development to educational development: A conceptual framework grounded in practice. In A. Saroyan, & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Tennant, M., & Pogson, P. (1995). Learning and change in the adult years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tennant, M. (2009). Lifelong learning as a technology of the self. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words. New York: Routledge. Thorsen, C. A., & DeVore, S. (2013). Analyzing reflection on/for action: A new approach. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 14(1), 88–103. Trowler, T., & Cooper, A. (2002). Teaching and Learning Regimes: Implicit theories and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development programmes. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(3), 221–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436022000020742. Usher, R. (2009). Experiences, pedagogy, and social practices. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words. New York: Routledge. Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2014). Improving teacher feedback during active learning: Effects of a professional development program. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 772–809. Van den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2015). Teacher learning in the context of a continuing professional development programme: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 142–150. Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social studies teachers' conceptions of history: Calling on historiography? The Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 158–176. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.

Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2002). Lectures’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469–490. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. Kember, D. (2009). Promoting student-Centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education, 58(1), 1–13. Kinchin, I. M. (2012). Avoiding technology-enhanced non-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 43–48. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards and integrative view of teacher behaviour and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 98–106. Li, T. S., & Huang, B. Y. (2008). The study of applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in supplier selection. Journal of Quantitative Management, 5(2), 39–56. Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 226–234. Light, G., & Cox, R. (2001). Learning and teaching in higher education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 285–298. Loureiro, A., & Caria, T. H. (2013). To learn and to construct knowledge in the context of work with adult education: A Portuguese case study? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(2), 149–164. Mayes, T., & De Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. JISC e-learning models. London: Joint Information Systems Committee. [Available at (Retrieved on 12/07/2014)] http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/ 20081225004835/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/ elearningpedagogy/outcomes.aspx. McCabe, A., & O'Connor, U. (2014). Student-centred learning: The role and responsibility of the lecturer. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 350–359. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/13562517.2013.860111. McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and communities. Maidenhead: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. McGarr, O., & McCormack, O. (2014). Reflecting to conform? Exploring Irish student teachers’ discourses in reflective practice. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(4), 267–280. Mezirow, J. (2009). An overview of transformation learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words. New York: Routledge. Minott, M. A. (2010). Reflective teaching as self-directed professional development: Building practical or work-related knowledge. Professional Development in Education, 36(1-2), 325–338. Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers' beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50, 537–571. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557–571. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-Up study of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 56(1), 29–43.

57