Open Journal of Social Sciences 2013. Vol.1, No.1, 5-12 Published Online February 2013 in SciR es (http://www.sci rp.org/journal/jss) DOI:10.4236/jss.2013.11002 Copyright © 2013 SciRes. A Research on Quality Assurance in Arts Classroom Teaching in Higher Education in China Ping Huan g, Jing Chen, Wenjing Zhe ng Faculty of Education, Sichu an Normal University, Ch engdu, Ch ina Email: huangpingpingp@yahoo. com.cn, cjbelinda@126.com,tk.jing@foxmail.com Received 2013 Classroom teaching is one of the most important aspects and links to assure quality in higher education. Although there have been some theoretical discussions and research by Chinese scholars about how to enhance the quality of classroom teaching in higher education, the experimental research of quality as- sura nce in teachi ng is rarely seen. Based on an exp lorati on of the teaching-learning methods of the pres- entation model, this article will provide evidence that interactive teaching styles, especially Presentation Teac hing Methods , a re very eff ici ent in impr oving the qua li ty of art s class room teac hing i n higher educa- tion. It will analyze the quality and quantity of the empirical knowledge, which includes consciously chal lenging a uthor ity, a cademic res earc h compet enci es of c ritic al rea ding, c rit ical wr iting a nd some pr ac- tica l abil i ties in findi ng, a na lyzi ng, sol ving p r obl ems and t ea m work . Final ly, i t will pr ovide s ome s ugges- tions for qua lity assurance in classroom tea ching in hi gher educa tion. Key words: Quality Assurance in Clas sroom Teaching; Analysis of Empirical K now ledge; Developing the Students’ Compet encies; Interactive Teachi ng Styles Introduction Ever since the Ministry of Education of China implemented the new policy of rapidly expanding the enrollment of new studentsin higher education in 1999, there is no doubt that the quality of classroom teaching has declined due to a shortage of lecturers, professors and teaching facilities including computers, classrooms and libraries. The issue of gradually increasing difficulties for graduates in finding jobs has appeared and be- come very grave. Also, Qian Xuesheng, the well known scien- tist posed this question eight times to Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister of China: “Why do universities in China not cultivate excellence at all times?”The “Questioning of QianXuesheng” pushes the quality assurance in higher education to the front of the debate (The Ministry of Education Press Office&China National Institute for Educational Research, 2010). Moreover, in theEssentials of National Middle-Long-term EducationalRe- form and Development Plan(2010-2020),the Chinese govern- ment pointed out: “ improving quality is the co re task of educa- tion reform and development”(Ministry of Education of Chi- na,2010).Classroom teaching is one of the key aspects and links to assure quality of education. Therefore, how to improve the effectiveness of classroom teaching to guarantee higher educa- tional quality becomes more necessary and important. There are man ydiscussi ons about effect ive teach in g in h igh er education by some Chinese scholars. However, most of them focused on the general principles or theoretical discussion about improving teaching efficiency. It is very rare to see research about quality assurance using empirical research of classroom teaching. This research project studied The Australian Higher Education Quality Assurance Framework(Department of Edu- cation, Training and Youth Affair, Australia, 2000) and found that it is one of the vital criteriato evaluate higher education qualityand whether the graduates could find satisfying jobs. Qualit y assuran ce in classr oom teach ing emph asizes cu ltivati ng the capabilities of learning and solving problems in order to match the social demands to the students’ talents. It has been found that during the process of quality assurance, the presenta- tion teaching method is implemented extensively in higher education in Australi a. For this reason , the research gro up con- ducted a survey in several universities in Guangzhou and at so me A rts Faculties in Sichuan Normal University, followed by constructive experimental research in Arts Classes in Higher Education, where the teaching method was changed from the instructional model to the interactive model. This included some academic research competencies of consciously chal- lenging authority, critical reading and thinking, as well as the competencies of dealing with social practical problems, such asfinding,analyzing and solving practical problems. The Current Situation in Arts Classroom Teaching in Higher Education Literary Review The literature review indicated that the teaching ideas and styles in universities still focuses on transmitting knowledge rather than developing students’ abilities although China has changed elite education into mass education. The predominant educational philosophy is still teacher - centred in higher edu- cation in China. Most lecturers and professors believe that de- livering subject knowledge systematically is more important than developing students’ abilities. Therefore, there is little chance for students to improve their abilities, particularly those of finding, analyzing, problem solving and creativity (Ma & Liu, 2008; Li & Li, 2011). The lecturers are more concerned
P. HUANG ET AL. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. with how to transform knowledge and cover all the knowledge points. Homework and tests are focused on assessing the stu- dents’ understanding and memory of the theories taught in the classroom. Methods of assessing the efficiency of learning usually consist of various types of closed-book exams. It is very common to see lecturers talk continuously for almost the whole class while students do their best to take notes as much as they can in order to meet the various test requirements. This is the same process as primary and middle schools(Song, 2011; Yi, 2010; Zhao &Guo J 2010).However, In 2007, the National Bureau of Statistics of China issued a sampling survey, in which the sampling fraction was 0.900% and the sample sur- veyed waspeople above 6 years of age.This survey indicated that only about 6.5% of Chinese peop le received higher ed uca- tion(Huang, 2009). It indicated that China does not have too many graduates. However,numerous companies have difficulty in recruiting graduateswho have the desired abilities: find- ing,analyzingand problem solving, and the ability to work coo- peratively. This condition indicates a truth,which isthat the instructional model of imparting knowledge does not satisfac- torily match the human resources market demands. SamplingSurvey A sampling survey of teaching styles in higher education was conducted, which involved367Arts students in Zhongsan Uni- versity, 63Arts students in Guangzhou University, 110 Arts students in Guangzhou Traditional Chinese Medical University and 321Arts students in Sichuan Normal university. These 861 students experienceddifferent learning styles. Table 1shows 71.8% of subjects are still taught by the dissemination of large amounts of theories through transmission teaching styleswhich neglects the cultivation of students’ abilities to apply those theories (Huang, 2013). This leads to most students simply learning and memorizing basic theories. The skills of finding, analyzing and problem solving are not developed effectively in many un iversities(Ma &Liu, 2008). A sampling survey of teaching methods that undergraduates would like to experience was conducted using the same res- pondents. Creating a responsive atmosphere, guiding students to join in and share knowledge and information was added as option “E”. The survey showed that 77% of students chose “E”.If add ed t o option “C”, there are 91% of students willing to experience interactive teaching styles rather than the usual transmission teaching style (Pie chart 1). No students chose “D”. These two sampling surveys display that on one hand, transmission-teaching styles are applied in most Arts classes (Table 1), and on the other hand, undergraduates wish to expe- rience interactive teaching styles (Huang, 2013) Educational Essence, Quality and Goal Jia Fuming, an educationalist from Taiwan, pointed out that the essence of education is the answer to why we teach(Jia, 2007). In theEssentials of National Middle-Long -term Educa- tionalReform and Development Plan (2010-2020), it stated: “education should be people-centered, this is the fundamental requirement for educators, … it is the fundamental standard for judging the quality of education to facilitate people’s compre- hensive development and adapt tothe demands of socie- ty”(Ministry of Education of China,2010).This supports the tenet that high quality education embodies facilitating people’s comprehensive development in order to match societal devel- opment. If higher education could emphasize various methods of development of students’ potential and practical skills to realize their theoretical knowledge and satisfy the needs of the human resources market, i.e. graduates with the skills of learn- ing, studying, finding, analyzing and solving problems, and team cooperation, the quality of students entering the workforce would improve as the q uality of the class room teachin g catered to their needs. Notes:A. Lecturers talking, students listening; B. Lecturers talking, ques- tioning little, students listening; C. Lecturers talking, questioning more, studen ts listen in g &answe r lit t le; D. Lect urers t alkin g, cont inu al qu esti onin g, requiring students answers, students join in actively; E. Creating a respon- sive atmosphere, guiding students to join in and sharing knowledge and information. Respondents:861 Art Undergraduates Chart 1. Percentage of learning styles that undergraduates would like to experi- enc e. Tabl e 1. Rankings of learning styles experienced by undergraduates. Options Ranking A.Lecturers talking, Students listening B.Lecturers talking, questioning little, Students listening C.Lecturers talking, ques- tioning m o r e, Students listen- ing & answering a little D.Lecturers talking, continual questioning requiring student answers, Students join in actively 1 71.8% 20.44% 7.6% 0 2 14.9% 76.08% 9.02% 0 3 7.6% 2.28% 82.24% 7.88% 4 5.48% 1.2% 1.2 92.12% Respondents:861 art under graduates (H uang, 2013 ).
P. HUANG ET AL. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. Classroom teaching in universities is a process that assists students to develop and improve their abilities and quality of life. The goal of teachin g is to p repare stu dent s for their career s and the needs of daily life(Hativa, 2010). It is more important that ed u cation devel op s und ergrad u ates’ cap ab ili ties of learn in g, studying, finding, analyzing and solving problems, and team- work rather than just transforming knowledge. It means wis- dom is more important than knowledge and the process of teaching is more important than the result(Yuan, 2007).This experimental research focused on developing the willingness to challenge authority, building up a method of critical thinking, improving the competencies of academic research and creativ- ity, training the skills of finding, analyzing and solving prob- lems and the ability of teamwork by subject knowledge, which is the carrier, and interactive teaching styles, which are an ap- proach. ResearchMethodology and Samples Based on theliterary review, sampling surveys and the dis- cussion on the essence of education, quality of education and the goal of classroom teaching in higher education, we intro- duced presentationsand interactive teaching styles to several groups of students at Sic huan Normal University. Methodology This res earch app lied a pred ominately construct ivist paradigm combined with a pragmatic paradigm. The researchers and students worked together to create effective teaching and learning. In this research, a sample survey method was used, which questioned the efficiency of the teaching styles before and after completion of constructive research from the experi- mental and contrast student groups, followed by data and in- formation collection. Observation and filming of the presenta- tion performance and the students’ performance in class was conducted. A teacher - student interview was organized, which was unstructured like a conversation, or a discussion (Mertens, 386) to gain more details (Denzen& Lincoln, 2005). Contrast- ing comparison methods, which compared the changes between the experimental group and contrast group students, and ahis- torical comparison, which compared changes before and after the exper iment were used. Research Samples The empirical researchsamples were chosen from undergra- duates in years two and year three in the Faculty of Education atSich uan Normal Univers ity. Ea ch semester, t wo classes t otal- ing around one hundred students were selected as subject- par- ticipants. Firstly the experimental group who were taught using the interactive teaching style and secondly, the contrast group students who were taught using a traditional transmission teaching style. The research wascon duct ed over three semester s invo lving an experimental group of 158 st udents and a contrast group of 150. It was conducted in the Leadership Psychologycourse from March t o July 2009, with 61 experimen tal students and 50 con- trast students. The second research was conducted from Sep- tember 2009 to January 2010, in the OrganizationalBehavior in Education cour sewith 51 experi mental students and 50 contrast students, followed in September 2010 through to January 2011 in the OrganizationalBehavior in Educationcourse with 46 experimental students and 50 contrast students. The Res ea rch Proced u res The empiricalresearch in tr odu ced several in ter active teach in g styles that suited the new teaching ideals into the experimental groups, especially Presentation Teaching Methods and group classroom discussion. The Questionnaires Before the Experiment In the second week of the semester, the questionnairesrelat- ing to which abilities had been trained and how much ability had been improved were conducted in the experimental group and contrast group (Table 2). Table 2. Degreesof improv ing between experimental and contrast group students b efore the experim ent. ImprovingResearch Marked Much Some A little No DimensionalitySamples Improvement ImprovementImprovementImprovementImprovement 1. Challenging A 0 007/4.4% 151/95.6% Authority B 0 0 1/0.6% 8/5.34% 141/94% 2. CriticalA0 004/2.5% 154/97.5% ReadingB0 005/ 3.3%145/96.7% 3. Critical A0 006/3.8% 152/96.2% Thinking B0 005/3.3%145/96.7% 4.FindingA0 014/8.9%134/84.8%10/6.3% Problems B0 5/3.3%9/6%121/80.7%15/10% 5.Analyzing A0 6/3.8%26/16.4% 126/79.7%0 Problems B0 8/5.3%23/15.3%119/97.3% 0 6.Solving A0 011/7%147/93%0 Problems B0 012/8%138/92%0 7.TeamworkA0 009/5.7% 149/94.3% B0 0010/6.7%140/93.3% Note: A: 158 Exper imenta l group students’ a nswer (introd uced interact ive teaching st yles) B: 150 Contrast group st udents’ a nswer (without introduced interactive teach- ing styles)
P. HUANG ET AL. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. The research found that both the experimental and contrast group, were very weak. 94.8% of respondents believed they had no improvement in challenging authority, 96.7% of respondents could not improve their abilities of critical reading and thinking, 87.9% of respondents had little improvement in the competen- cies of finding, analyzing and solving problems, and 93.8% of respondents did not improve their competence of teamwork. No responders showed a marked improvement in any of the above aspects, and only 3.3% and average 4.55% of responders had much improvement in finding and analysing problems. This indicated a great weakness in cultivating the capabilities that society needs using the traditional transmission teaching meth- ods. The difference of improvement between the experimental group and contrast group students was very small. The Process of the Experiment We implemented the experimental researchin the course un- itsfortwo periods per week that, totaling twenty-six periods each semester. An Introduction of Educational P hilosophy and Teaching Me thods In the first period, the philosophy, goals, teachers’ roles in the classroom and Group Presentation method was introduced to the exp er imental class s tudents. This included: Understanding the Philosophy of Classroom Teaching Developing students’ comprehensive abilities is more im- portant than the transmission of knowledge. Teaching know- ledge is a platform for cultivating students’ abilities. The pur- pose of education is to train students various abilities through engaging th em to participate in the t eaching-learning activities, which are preparing, presenting, answering questions and as- sessing other students’ presentations. The consequence is that they actively explore and discover knowledge. Understanding the Goal of Classroom Teaching • Firstly, help the students to understand why the y need to form ahabit of consciouslychallenging academic authority and to improvetheir critical thinking. • Secondly, how to developcompetencies in academic re- search, which include learning how to research academic in- formation, how to develop opinions by critical reading and critical thinking. • Thirdly, training students’to apply theoretical knowledge, which includes: finding issues from society, identifying social problems, analyzing these problems by applying theories and finally finding solutions to those issues. • Finally, teach the students how to produce PPT presenta- tions, working in groups and practicing teamwork. Understanding of the Teachers’ Role in the Classroom As the ed ucator Dewe y pointed out, teach ers are partici pants in the learning process. Their task is guiding students to dis- cover the contents of the field independently(Dewey, 1897). Therefore, teachers are suppliers and guiders. They offer vari- ous kinds of learning skills and methods, and updatedinforma- tionin the classroom. So, a mailbox was set up for students and teachers sharing information, opinions and articles in the expe- rimental groups. The Composition of Student Assessment In order to objectively assess students’ comprehensive com- peten cies, the assess ment d ivid es int o different part s and stages, which include 5% for attendance, 5% for classroom debating, 10% for group classroom discussion, 30% for group presenta- tion and 50% for final essay. Building up the Ability to Consc iously Chal lenge Academi c Authority From the second period, lecturers started to guide the stu- dents in how to point out inadequacies in the textbook or the teacher’s explanations, and then encouraged them to share t heir thoughts with the class. As well as giving topics for discussion in the classroom to be presented by each student in two weeks, students were offered ten study cases to choose from for their group presentation to be presented, beginning in four weeks, one group a week. Experiment of Group Di scussion In the third period, lecturers started to guide the studentsto formstudy groups based on their interest in the offered cases and considering factors such as gender and student leaders in order to assure the optimal combination and effectiveness of the teams. Every group had 5-6 students. After selecting a team leader, students sat together with team members and completed the group discussion together in the classro om at all times. The group’s score is the individual’s score. The pr ocedures are: • Group members researched individually on the topic they chose before the classroom discussion • Students discuss for twenty minutes and lecturers observe and listen to them • Each group chooses one representative to state in five minutes, the key points of the topic and to sum up their opin- ions • Lecturer makes a comment to each group statement ac- cording to performance of members, academic terms used and the level of theoretical analysis during the d iscussion • Lecturer gives the group score immediately. Experiment on Group Presentati o n The lectur er provides a list of casesrelati ng to the knowledge of this subject. After each gr oup selects a case, t hey collect an d critically read the relevant information and theories from aca- demic books, journals and online academic papers. Then, to build up their own views and opinions they look for supporting theo r ies, analyzing the practical problems in the case. This is followed by discussion of the case with team members and developing a presentation essay using power point. Finally, all the members of the group will conduct a presentation in the classroom. Group’s score is the individual’s score. The Prepar a t io n of Gr oup Pre s e ntati on • Choosing topic together from the offered list of cases • Distributing the task to group members • Members individually research the basic information about the company in the case study • Members discussion: contributing the findings, what the problems and issues are, what could be improved and what theories were used to support the solution • Students form outline of presentation • Lecturer discusses the outline with student groups and
P. HUANG ET AL. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. offers suggestions • Group members work together to improve the contents of presentation essay and produce Power Point presentation. Gr oup Pres e nt ing • The group presents their PPT to their classmates for thirty minutes, each member speaking no less than four minutes • Answering questions created by classmates for fifteen minutes • Group hand in their presentation essay and Power Point production. Assessment from other Groups and Lecturer • Other student groups will take ten minutes to assess the group presentation. They evaluate the presentation performance according to the Evaluation Criterion supplied by the lecturers. The students will hand in their assessments immediately after completion. • Teacher’s comments for twenty five minutes include: a. Individual performance b. The quality of Power Point c. Clarity of the issues and problems, how accurately the theories match the case, the logicality of analysis and integri- tyof the presentation. • Giving suggestions, relevant theories and research meth- odology • Encouraging other student groups to develop different opinions. Questionnaires after Experiment In order to ascertain the effectiveness of teaching-learning methods to improve abilities, a comparison questionnaire was conducted in both the experimental group and the contrast group at the end of th e semester(see T able 3). The P aired S am- ples Test for the experimental student group showing the de- gree of abili ty improve mentwas do ne before an d after the expe- riment. Fr om Table 4, it can be seen that students in the expe- rimentalgroup presented a remarkable difference (p<0.001) in seven dimensionalities before and after the experiment. This indicated that the students’ abilities in these seven as- pectsshowed a notable improvement attributable to the training methods. Table 3. Degrees of improv ement between ex perimental and c ontrast grou psafter the exp eriment. Improving Research Marked Much Some A little No Dimensionality Samples Improvement ImprovementImprovementImprovementImprovement 1. Challenging A 42 / 26.5% 56 / 35.4% 37 / 23.4% 12 / 7.5% 11/6.9% Authority B 6/4% 9/6% 6/4% 57/38% 72/48% 2. Critical A 83/52.5% 36/22.7% 25/15.8% 14/8.8% 0 Reading B 0 0015/10% 135/90% 3. Critical A 67/42.4% 41/2 0 Thinking B 0 6/4% 12/8% 12/8% 120/80% 4. Finding A 88/5 5.6% 48/30.6% 16/10.1% 6/3.7% 0 ProblemsB 6/4% 6/4% 9/6% 18/12% 111/74% 5. Analyzing A 89/56.3% 43/27.2% 22/14% 4/2.5% 0 Problems B 21/14% 36/24% 66/44% 27/18% 0 6. Solving A 92/58.2% 5/28.4% 20/12.6% 1/0.6% 0 ProblemsB 6/4% 12/8% 24/16% 84/56% 24/16% 7. Team work A 127/80.4% 25/15.8% 6/3.8% 0 0 B 0 5/3.3% 26/17.3% 91/60.7% 28/18.7% A: 158 Experimental group students’ answer (introduced interactive teaching styles). B: 150 Contrast group students’ answer (without introduced interactive teaching styles). Table 4. T Test for paired sample of experimental groups (N=158). Contents of Improvin g M SD T 1. Challenging authority 2. Cr it ic al reading 3. Cr it ic al thi nking 4. Finding problems 5. Analyzing problems 6. Sol ving pr obl ems 7. Team work -2.627 1.154 -3.165 1.009 -2.911 1.119 -2.367 0.752 -2.082 0.773 -2.373 0.736 -3.722 0.528 -28.617*** -39.438*** -32.690*** -39.583*** -33.839*** -40.553*** -88.619*** Note ***represent for p<0.001
P. HUANG ET AL. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. Observation of Students’ Performance Each experimental group’s presentation wasvideoed. The video sho wed th at as th e experi ment pr oceed ed, the l ater st uden t groups showed greater improvement in the seven aspects than the prior groups.Contrasting the performance between the first and final group’s presentations, the final group’s presentation was noticeably better than the first one. Interview Several students were interviewed a year after th e experiment was completed. The feedback indicated that students learned many skills from the interacti ve teach in g styles, especi all y from the group presentation, which they wereable to apply to other subjects and social activities. Analysis of Experiment Results The experiment involved three classes over a period of two years. At the end of the semester, asurveyof the experimental groupstudents indicated that various kinds of competencies, such as summarizing issues, presenting skills, critical reading and thinking,finding, analyzingand solving problems, ques- tioning and debating in the classroom had improved. It also showed thatthese students liked the interactive teaching style. 86.05% liked small groupdiscussion and 81.40% likedgroup- presentation. Comparing the results with traditional transmis- sion teaching styles, 91.7% of experimental groupstudents chose P resentat ion Teaching M ethods as their pr eferred method of learning. Historical Comparison The improvement in competence between groups before and after implementing the new teaching styles has been substan- tiatedby questionnaire data. Improvement in Consciously Cha llenging Academic Au- thority, Criti cal Reading and Thinking It can be seen (Table 5) that there was an improvement of consciously challenging authority from 95.6% of students with No Improvement to 26.5% of studentswith Marked and 35.4% with Much Improvement, totalling more than 60%.Similarly, more than 75% of students in critical reading and more than 68% of students in critical thinking showedMarked and MuchImprovement.Notably, most of them improved in chal- lenging authority. From the recorded video, it can be found that after the first group presentation, no studentshad questions, but most actively and conscientiously took notes. Gradually, more and more students began to question actively, to debate points with classmates, and seek clarification ofthe lecturer’s evalua- tion ofthe group presentations. As the experiment went by, students questioned and debated more and more vigorously, always within th e rules and style o f academic debating. Developmentof the A bility to Find, Analyze and S o lve Problems Although the survey prior to the experiment showed (Table 5) that ability to find, analyze and solve problems was better than consciously challenging authority, critical reading and thinking, it also showed that 93.7% of students improved at finding problems.However, 84.4% have A Little Improvement, and there was no improvement at th e Marked and Much levels. In improvement of analyzing problems, only 3.8% of students improved at theMuchlevel and 79.7% of students showedA Little Improvement. Similarly in the ability to solve problems, 93% of students improved A Little. All t hese dat a indicat ed that the students could not improve their ability to find, analyze and solve problems effectively under the traditional teaching- learning methods. However, it can be seen fro m The Pai red Samples Test (Ta- ble 4) that the students had an obvious improvement in their ability to find, analyze and solve problems after implementation of interactive teaching methods, where group presentation was the dominating factor. Moreover, Table 5 indicates that the percentage of students who showedMarked Improvement in finding, analyzing and solving problems was 55.6%, 56.3% and 58.2%, and the percentage who showedMuch Improvementwas 30.6%, 27.2% and 28.4%. No studentsshowedNo Improvement. Table 5. Degrees of improv ement between before and af ter the ex periment in the experimentalgrou ps. Improving Research Marked Much Some A little No Dimensionality Samples Improvement ImprovementImprovementImprovementImprovement 1. Challenging A 0 007/4.4% 151/95.6% Authority A’ 42 / 26.5% 56 / 35.4% 37 / 23.4% 12 / 7.5% 11/6.9% 2. Critical A0 004/2.5%154/97.5% ReadingA’ 83/52.5% 36/22.7% 25/15.8% 14/8.8% 0 3. Critical A0 006/3.8% 152/96.2% Thinking A’ 67/42.4% 41/25.9% 26/16.6% 24/15.1% 0 4.Finding A 0 014/8.9%134/84.8%10/6.3% ProblemsA’ 88/55.6% 48/30.6% 16/10.1% 6/3.7% 0 5.Analysing A0 6/3.8%26/16.4%126/79.7%0 Problems A’ 89/56.3% 43/27.2% 22/14% 4/2.5% 0 6.Solving A0 011/7%147/93%0 Problem A’ 92/58.2% 45/28.4% 20/12.6% 1/0.6% 0 7.TeamworkA0 009/5.7% 149/94.3% A’ 127/80.4% 25/15.8% 6/3.8% 0 0 Note: A: 158 Experimental class s tudents ’ answer before exper ime nt. A’ : 158 Exper imental class students’ answer after experi ment
P. HUANG ET AL. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. In or der to calculate th e degree of improvementi n the abili ty to find, analyze and solve problems after the experiments,we chose the case study essays from the first two Group’s Presen- tations. We then collected the students’ individual final essays, which werest ill in the case st udy st yle,at the en d of experi ment, and compared them with their group presentation essays.We found that 93.3% of students were able to solve 90% of the problems presented in the case study, 76.7% of students were able to analyze the problems theoretically and present solutions, followed by13.3% who recommendeda r easonable solution. After the experiment, most students were able to systemati- cally anal yze the case stud y by using logic and theories relat ed to the course units,forming their own opinions and solutions. They were also able to respond to questions and participate in debat es wit hclassmates. A Marked Improvement in Teamwor k Before the experiment, the questionnairesshowed that 94.3% of students showed No Improvement and 5.7% showedLittle Impro vem ent in teamwork. However, after the experiment, the percentage of students who showedMarked, Much and Some improvement were 80.4%, 15.8% and 3.8%, which means 100% of students had varying degrees of improvement. These improvementswerealso confirmed by conducting a detailed interview. Most students realized the importance of communi- cation and cooperation when working in a group. Moreover, they realized they should communicate and cooperate with group members althoughthey may have time restraints imposed by a busy university study regime and sometimes,marked dif- ferencesin personal opinions and attitudes. They learned how to respect each other’s opinions and achieve a common view through academic arguments. They said, “ It waspainfulbut happy during the experimental procedure”. Not only the ability to cooperate has been learned from it but also some valuable teamwork skills. Contrasting Comparison As discussed above, before the experiment the difference between the experimental groups and contrast groupswas very small. Under the traditional teaching-learning methods pres- ently being practiced, the abilities which today’s society re- quires, of finding, analyzing and solving problems are anun- dervalued and mostly ineffective area of the curriculum. Both students’ ability to consciously challenge authority and the academic competencies of critical reading and thinking appear are weak. After the experi ment, th e surve yover thr ee semester s sho wed that ther e was a marked differen ce bet ween cont rast group s and experimentalgroups on seven dimensions (Table 3), which includeconsciously challenging authority, critical reading and thinking, finding, analyzing and solving problems, as well as- teamwork. Th e percentages of impr ovement in the experimental groups are much higher than in the contrast groups. Firstly, 61.9% of exp erimentalgroupstudents achievedMarked and MuchimprovementinChallenging authority, comparedwith 10% in the contrast groups.On the aspects of critical reading and thinking, experimental students improved 52.5% inMarked degree and 42.4% in Much degree, while the contrast students showed no improvement in these two aspects in Much degree. Moreover, if we con sid erMarked and Much improvement, mo r e than 83% of the experimental groups’ students showed im- provement inproducingsolutions and finding and analysing problems, compared with the contrast group with 38% im- provement foranalyzingproblems, followed by 12% for produ- cingsolutions and 8%forfinding problems. In addition, the dif- ference in teamwork becomes very obvious, where 80.4% of the experimental students improved Marked compared with zero in the contrast students. The Chi-squareTest shows the number of improved students in both theexperimental and contrast groups (Table 3-4).The out comes clearly indi cateanobvious difference (p<0.01); that in the seven dimensions observed, the students in the experimen- talgroupsshowed greater improvement than those in the contrast groups. Other Outcomes Contribution to Social Activities The students in the experimental groups in 2009 achieved high results in the university-run competition of Excellent Class, for utilizing the skills they acquired during the process of re- searching and compiling information for their group presenta- tion. They believe this is because their ability to comprehend and professionally present their findings had been cultivated by the interactive teaching-learni ng methods . Table 6. Diff erence of the degree of impr o v ementbetween experimental a n d contrast groups af ter the ex periment (χ2). χ2(df=4) 1. Challenging authority 2.Critical reading 3.Critical thinking 4.Fin ding problems 5.A naly z ing pr obl e ms 6.S olvingproblems 7.Te am work 157.41** 279.01** 222.16** 223.10** 81.57** 199.91** 271.81** P.S:**represent for p<0.01.
P. HUANG ET AL. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. Skills Learned The experimental group students took part in peer-group as- sessment, allotting grad es to classmates. F rom this they learned how to evaluate each other’s work and gained a deeper under- standing of the requirements of group presentation, enabling them to enhance the quality of their performance in the class- room. Moreover, the students could now confidently respond to questions from and debates with classmates using theories and knowledge gained through the presentation teaching-learning methods. Students also acquired the skill of making a Power Point production. Appropri at e Amount of Presentations The presentation teachin g-l ear ning methods received positive feedback, but that does not mean that students should necessar- ily be taught using this method alone. Results of interviews with students in Lingnan College of Zhongshan University, suggested that, although they like the method, they would pre- fer it for no more than four subjects each semester. This is be- cause the presentations will consume more of their time and energy than traditional teaching methods, time which is not available for those who have more than five courses in one semester in Chinese universities. Conclusion It has been stated that undergraduates could gain higher qual- ity learning through interactive teaching-learning methods. These include transferring course and subject knowledge as a carrier, conducting presentations and discussions, creating an environment where students are engaged, encouraging under- graduates to participate in class activities, and finally, creating posi tive interact ion between lecturers and stud ents and allowing stud ents to take an active part in their learning. Moreover, every student in the experimental groups com- pleted at least five evalu ations of ot her group presen tations and a series of questioning and debating sessions with classmates, as well as their own presentation and peer assessment. These repeated experiences reinforced and improved the students’ ability to produce a clear and concise presentation. Through this experience, their ability to consciously challenge authority and read and think critically, had been gradually improving. It also gave incen ti ve to stu dent s to enhance th eir abi lities o f acade mic researching and writing, creating and innovation. In addition, the experimental group students’ expertise in finding, analyzing and solving problems by applying academic theories was pre- dominant. Through this method, the efficiency of classroom teaching could increase and improved quality would be ensured. In this way, the undergraduates not only learn the knowledge, but also the methods of practical application of that knowledge, through this, the requirements of the human resources market are being trained and cultivated. The newly developed abilities would provide a strong basis for undergraduates’ daily life and career in thefuture. However, it is desirable to have a comfortable balance be- tween both teaching methods, and lecturers are best placed to assess when, and with which classes interactive teaching is appropriate. The extra workload imposed on students and lec- turers and the sudden increase in PPT or similar presentations needs to be considered.Both methods can be employed concur- rently and flexibly to maintain a positive and continual im- provement in the overall education of students. REFERENCES The Ministry of Education Press Office &China National Institute for Educational Research. (2010). Dialogue to Educational Hot Topics in 2009(pp)113, Beijing , Educa- tional Science Publishing House. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affair (2000). The Aus- tralian Higher Education Qua lity Assur ance Framework, Occasional Paper Se ries, Canberra. www.detya.gov.au/highered/mceetya-cop.htm Dewey, J. (1897). My P edagogic Creed. Retrieved from http://book. Google.com/books http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey P9 Hativa,N.(2010). Teaching for Effective Learning in HigherEduca- tion(pp38). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers press Hang Pi ng. (2009). A Discussion ofTheQuality Assurance in Higher Educa- tion in Australiaand the inspiration to China, Journal of Southwes- tUniversity for Nationalities (Humanities and Social Science), 220, 273-278. Huang Ping. (2013). Reflecting onthe Research Methodology Based onThe research of Improving the Effectiveness of Classroom Tea- chingof Higher Education in China. In the proceed ings of Ec onomi cs and Social Science (pp.200-206), Information Engineering Research Institute,USA Jia Fuming. (2007). Educational Essence-What is Real Education (pp7). Beijing, World Publishing Corporation. Li Shuqin& Li Lingli. (2011). On theTheory and Strategy of Effective Teachingin Colleges and Universities in the New Period. Heilong- jiangEducation(Higher Education Research & Appraisal), 939, 20-22. Ma yaqing& Liu Lengxing. (2008). Qua lity a ndAccountability inHigh- er Educa tion (pp.9-10). Beijing, BeijingNormal University Publishing House. Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and- Ps ychology: Int egrating diver sity with Quan titative, Qualitative, a n d Mixed Methods (pp.2 & 88-189). Thousand Oaks, London, Sage press. Ministry ofEducation of China. (2010). Essentials of National Mid- dle-Long-term Educational Refor m and Development Pla n (2010– 2020)(pp.9). Beijing, BeijingNormal University Publishing House. Song Qiuqian . (2011 ). On theP ractic al Stra tegies of Effec tive Teac hing in Colleges and Universities. Research in Educa tional Development, No.5, 74-75. Yi Qizhi. (2010). On the Effectiveness of Classroom Teaching in Uni- versities. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Educa tion University (Phi- losophy and Social Sc i ences Edi tion), 31 , 108-110. Yuan Zhenguo.(2007). New Ideain Education(pp.14). Beijing, Educa- tional Science Publishing Hou se. Zhao Jushan&GuoJunying. (2010). On theMethod of Enhancing Effec- ti v e Teachi ng of t eacher. China Higher Education ,13, 14,28-30.
|