NASI KIT by Angie Lim

Teaching and Educational Development (TED) @

New Academic Staff Induction (NASI) Kit

I, _______________________________, Staff ID: ________________, Division: _________________________, hereby confirmed that I have received: No

Item

General NASI info pack

Latest NASI Schedule of the month (TED will broadcast the schedule updates via email on monthly basis. Please refer the latest schedule via email.)

Taylorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Graduate Capabilities (Softcopy is available in the Staff Portal.)

Teaching and Learning Framework (Softcopy is available in the Staff Portal.)

Additional NASI Reading Materials

Total

Acknowledged Receipt

1 copy NILnotification only 1 copy 1 copy 1 booklet

Date of Collection Collected by TED Staff in-charge

Note: 1) Please attach this copy with your NASI Checklist. 2) This copy must be submitted together with the NASI checklist upon obtaining final signatures from TED HoD and Deans, once all the eight modules have been completed.

TED-NASI-08-02-2011

CONTENTS PART A

BRIEF ABOUT TEACHING & EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (TED)

PART B

BRIEF ABOUT N.A.S.I.

PART C

TAYLOR’S GRADUATE CAPABILITIES (TGC)

PART D

TEACHING AND LEARNING FRAMEWORK (TLF)

PART A BRIEF ABOUT TEACHING & EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (TED)

Integrated Teaching and Life-long Learning @ Taylor’s

INTELLECT stands for Integrated Teaching and Life-long Learning Center at Taylor’s. The aim of the Center is to ensure provision of relevant, innovative, and excellent learning experience at Taylor’s. This mandate emanates from the commitment of Taylor’s University to become the leading teaching and learning institution in the region.

INTELLECT brings to fusion the three-fold functions of enhancing total learning experience through excellent teaching, outstanding student life support initiatives, and innovative and technologydriven learning environment.

3 - MAJOR DRIVERS

Taylorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (Total) Learning Experience (TLE)

Excellent Teaching + Outstanding Student Support Initiatives + Innovative and Technology Driven Learning Environment 4

Strategic Priorities Our strategic positioning is to establish INTELLECT as the institutional clearing house for all teaching and learning initiatives. Inclusive of this goal are the following activities: • Integration of policies and procedures relevant and related to teaching and learning • Creation of teaching and learning database, analysis, and dissemination • Full implementation of the Taylor’s Teaching and Learning Philosophy and Framework (TLF), and the Taylor’s Graduate Capability (TGC) 5

InTeLLeCT ‘s 3-Divisions • Teaching and Educational Development (TED) - The role of TED is to complement the academics’ initiatives to enhance their role in the total learning experience. • Learning and Academic Skills (LAS) – LAS is tasked to ensure a balanced and rewarding student’s life experience. • Technology, Research and Innovation (TRI) – TRI’s role is to ensure that learning experiences at Taylor’s are driven by creativity, innovation, and technology. 6

TEACHING AND EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (TED)

Training and Educational Development (TED) is one of the divisions under InTeLLeCT. The overarching goal is to cultivate excellence in teaching through practice, development, and innovation. TED assists the academics by providing platforms in order to achieve the desired Taylor's teaching excellence standard. TED ensures provision of developmental activities that would enhance their teaching capability and learning engagement.

TED's Direction:

TED’s Direction • Strategic – long term, developmental, engaging, holistic • Leveraging – generating, innovating, setting new standard • Sustainable – inclusive, integrating, enhancing

Classification

Certification

TED’s Main Tasks Continuing Assessment

Development

TED’s Teaching and Learning Support • New Academic Staff Integration (NASI) Program – NASI was designed to assist newly hired academic staff in their integration in the new learning environment. The initiative provides the significant dimensions of Taylor’s total learning experience. The NASI training modules help the new academic staff to journey from Taylor’s teaching and learning philosophy and framework to Taylor’s graduate capability components. 12

NASI Modules • • • • • • • •

Teaching in Higher Education Effective Classroom Management Student-Centered Learning Empowering and Motivating Students Appreciating and Managing Learner Diversity Student Assessment and Monitoring Technology as Cognitive Tool Engaging in Academic Research 13

• Continuing Professional Training (CPT) – The CPT is designed for all academic staff. This is another platform to encourage them to participate in various training development initiatives aimed to enhance their teaching capability and learning engagements. The topics varies from pedagogy to soft skills and even technology. 14

• Trainer's Training Program (TTP)– This platform gives opportunities to academic staff to become advocates and leaders in their teaching engagement experiences. Those who are willing to undergo further training will be asked to mentor and share their advanced knowledge and skills to their peers and others.

TED’s Complimentary Platforms • • • • •

Teaching and Learning Conference Teaching and Learning Festival TED’s Echo Seminars TED’s Lecture Series Teh Tarik Sessions

Dr. Angelo Cruz Maduli Head

Wahida Binti Mohamed Saleh TED Development Adviser

Angie Lim Loo Ing Senior Executive 17

Teaching and Educational Development (TED) Integrated Teaching and Life-long Learning Center @ Taylor’s (InTeLLeCT) Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus No. 1 Jalan Taylor’s, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan T : +603-5629 500 extension 5293 F : +603-5629 5001 E : ted.intellect@taylors.edu.my

PART B BRIEF ABOUT N.A.S.I.

22/3/2012

New Academic Staff Induction (NASI) 2011 By Teaching and Educational Development (TED) @ InTeLLeCT

Prepared by Angie Lim/ W.e.f January 2011/ Updated as at 21 March 2012

NASI Modules

for New Academic Staff I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

Prepared by Angie Lim/ W.e.f January 2011/ Updated as at 21 March 2012

w.e.f January 2011

22/3/2012

STEP 1

Submit Checklist

to Teaching and Educational Development (TED), Block C, Level 2, InTeLLeCT

STEP 2

Obtain NASI Kit

To attach the acknowledge receipt and checklist until the completion of all modules

STEP 3

Check the NASI Schedule

STEP 4

Attend Modules

STEP 5

Submit Assessments

STEP 6

Obtain Trainers’ signatures for your checklist

STEP 7

after each modules to the trainers.

Obtain signature from TED HoD and Dean

STEP 8

Submit a copy of the completed checklist

Once all modules are verified by trainers.

to: 1. TED Dept., 2. Your individual respective Dean 3. A copy for your own reference. 4. Original copy to the HR Department.

Prepared by Angie Lim/ W.e.f January 2011/ Updated as at 21 March 2012

Important Notification for New Academic Staff

This exercise is applicable for all new academic staff who are commencing from 1st January 2011 onwards.

II.

Academic Staff who have commenced before 1st January 2011, may only require to adhere to “Step 7” and “Step 8” as stated in the process.

III.

This exercise is applicable only to all academic staff of Taylor’s University.

IV.

TED has the rights to change any contents and items in NASI Kit prior to any notifications.

Attendance for each module will only be considered FULL attendance once you have attended the FULL session for each module and completed the assessments provided by the Trainers.

VI.

The NASI modules are currently under review.

VII.

TED has the rights to change the modules or any other information/procedures, relating to NASI, without prior notice.

Prepared by Angie Lim/ W.e.f January 2011/ Updated as at 21 March 2012

w.e.f January 2011

22/3/2012

Our NASI Trainers… No

Trainer

Position

Department

5293

Angelocruz.maduli@taylors.edu.my

Dr Angelo Cruz Maduli

Nurlida Ismail

Senior Lecturer

Taylor’s Business School

5667

Nurlida.ismail@taylors.edu.my

Adrian Yao

Senior Lecturer & Manager, Educational Content, Technology, Research & Innovation (TRI)

Technology, Research & Innovation (TRI) @ InTeLLeCT

5411

Yao.adrian@taylors.edu.my

Ratneswary Rasiah

Senior Lecturer

Taylor’s Business School

5675

Ratneswary.rasiah@taylors.edu.my

5667

Pooifong.ong@taylors.edu.my

Taylor’s Business School

Irene Ong Pooi Fong

Senior Lecturer

Dr Ann Tan

Senior Lecturer

School of Hospitality

5401

Ann.tan@taylors.edu.my

Associate Prof. Dr Vikneswaran Nair

Director, Centre for Research and Development

Centre for Research and Development

5377

Vicky.nair@taylors.edu.my

Professor Dr Richard Watkins

Pro Vice-Chancellor

Strategic Development & International Relations

5710

Prepared by Angie Lim/ W.e.f January 2011/ Updated as at 21 March 2012

w.e.f January 2011

Ext No

Teaching and Educational Development (TED) @ InTeLLeCT

Head, Teaching and Educational Development (TED)

Richard.watkins@taylors.edu.my

PART C TAYLOR’S GRADUATE CAPABILITIES (TGC)

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

TAYLOR’S GRADUATE CAPABILITIES Past achievement is but an indicator of future potential – Minni K. Ang.

Introduction The aim of this paper is to present the conceptual framework for the concrete integration of Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities (TGC) within the teaching and learning philosophy of Taylor’s University College (TUC) as well as all TUC degree-level curricula. Structure of this paper The first section below presents the case for why the present TGC initiative is needed, both in the global as well as the local context. The remainder of the paper presents the conceptual framework. The idea of a distinctive “TUC graduate” means that the criteria that define such a person must be identified from broad categories of fundamental qualities that can be acquired through a university education and that are yet consistent with values deemed important by TUC top leadership. The next two main sections below coherently address this in comprehensive terms. • Foundations - Defining the successful individual - Identifying the role of tertiary education in developing the complete person - Defining key terms – the importance of semantics • Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities - Beliefs, assumptions and values - List of capabilities

Relevance (incl. global trends)

Full profile for success

TGC

TUC values

Student-centred and intentional-learner based directly impacts upon Delivery of content

Teaching & learning philosophy

& evaluation methods

Curricular design

Knowledge base (Discipline specific) Program structure Subject templates (LAN compliant)

integrates TGC

Skills base (Generic skills) Student portfolios (Mapping generic skills)

Figure 1. TGC initiative overview

The final section of the paper integrates TGC within the teaching and learning philosophy of TUC. Our model is student-centred as well as intentional-learning based, which directly impacts how discipline-specific content is delivered as well as how students are evaluated. This in turn affects the design of our curricula and introduces also the idea of mapping students’ acquisition of generic skills through the use of a cumulative student portfolio. The overview of our TGC initiative is presented in Figure 1.

Page 1 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Why the Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities initiative is needed There is a current worldwide drive to review and revamp university level education due to pressure from market forces and increased competition (Hopper, 2002; Nunan, 1999 p.3), as evidenced by various recent nationwide developments among the leading global exporters of higher education services. The main directly relevant issues involved are: - the trend towards privatization and the new role of students as customers that demand student-centred curricula that genuinely prepare them for life “in the real world” - the trend towards globalization and the challenge not only to produce globally competitive graduates but also to compete for students at an international level The American, Australian and British responses to these issues have varied in form but are similar in their essence, that essence being to acknowledge that university education needs to prepare its graduates for success: at work in particular and at life in general; and to identify key qualities, abilities and skills that define the successful graduate. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) recommends emphasis on educating students to become intentional learners, whereby skills learnt in one situation (for example, the classroom) can be adapted to solving problems in another (for example, at work) (AACU, 2002 p.21). In line with this, a set of essential learning outcomes has been identified to provide a “new framework to guide students’ cumulative progress from school through college” – this is essentially a list of knowledge, skills and attitudes gained by graduates that prepares them for “success in meeting 21st century challenges” (AACU, 2007 p.3). The British equivalent of this is articulated on Prospects.ac.uk, the UK’s official graduate career website, which emphasizes employable skills (Prospects, 2007) that should be acquired during the course of an undergraduate education. A recent study published by the City of London (Dawson et al, 2006) reiterates the importance of generic skills in relation to graduate employability. An alternative British perspective advocates the use of the term graduate identity where “the ability to engage in knowledge production, according to the traditions of academia (universality, essential contestability, etc) may be articulated as being amongst the aims of the undergraduate curriculum alongside the ability to apply knowledge, in different contexts.” (Holmes, 2002). Essentially, the British objection to the use of the term “generic” or “transferable” skills stems from artificially imposing generic-specific training upon students (Gibbs and McAlpine, 2006). Australia’s Business/Higher Education Round Table (B-HERT) has identified graduate attributes and generic skills (Goldsworthy, 2003) as being key factors in defining successful graduates. Australia’s initiative has been more thorough in that B-HERT has spearheaded a nationwide effort to incorporate these concepts directly within the curricula of the different universities (Goldsworthy, 2003; Markwell, 2003), as well as to identify emerging skills that will define successful graduates of the future and the nature of education and training required to meet those needs (Goldsworthy, 2006). A farsighted paper by Nunan (1999) highlighted that in a mass education market, “Where graduate skills or literacies connect with employment skills, their specification and reporting offers an edge to a degree” (Nunan, 1999 p.3).

Page 2 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

On the local front, Malaysian universities have yet to explicitly incorporate the idea of intentional learners’ learning outcomes1 / employable skills / graduate identity / graduate attributes / generic skills into their curricula, although some may claim it is implicitly included anyway. The value in incorporating these concepts within the curricula lies however in its purposefulness being made known to students from the very start of their undergraduate careers – in other words, educating students to be intentional learners (Hart et al, 1999 p.302). “Becoming such an intentional learner means developing selfawareness about the reason for study, the learning process itself, and how education is used.” (AACU, 2002 p.22). A concrete strategy towards this end is to require students to build their own personal skills development portfolio that maps their achievements against their university’s expectations (Hay et al, 2003 p.11). As Taylor’s University College embarks on a new era with the upgrade to University College status and the corresponding authority to design and structure our own curricula and issue our own degrees, the concrete integration of Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities within our teaching and learning philosophy as well as into the very fabric of all our tertiary-level curricula will go a long way towards firmly establishing these new programs as being the among the very best and will reinforce TUC’s position as the leading private tertiary institution in Malaysia2. “It is contended that, where institutions can present credible information about their commitment to developing qualities in graduates and students can provide evidence of the attainment of these qualities, both the institution and its students will be advantaged in a buyer’s market for graduates.” (Nunan, 1999 p.9).

Foundations What kind of individual is most likely to succeed in life? What role does tertiary education have to play in the formation of such an individual? These are two soul-searching questions that have to be comprehensively and coherently answered when reinventing our institution and ourselves in terms of our tertiary teaching and learning philosophy. Defining Success There are different ways of defining success in life. Some would equate success in life with public eminence or individual glory. For our purposes, and a definition which would likely satisfy most parents who are the primary stakeholders in each individual’s life besides the individual himself (or herself) is this: success in life means achieving self1

The term “learning outcomes” is used in Malaysian curricula, as required by Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN), to define specific learning outcomes for various courses. However this is different from the term “learning outcomes” as used in the context of this paragraph, which can be taken to be the US equivalent of the other terms listed here. 2 Recent independent market surveys indicate that Taylor’s University College still maintains its standing as the No.1 private tertiary institution in Malaysia, but with a narrowing gap over its nearest competitors. The Graduate Capabilities initiative will serve to strengthen TUC’s position by not only strengthening its academic curricula but also by being seen to be doing so in a very concrete manner that is easily grasped by students, potential students, and their parents.

Page 3 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

fulfilment or developing the individual to his or her fullest potential in all aspects of life including self, family and work. While the primary role of any tertiary curriculum is to significantly contribute towards this last aim – the development of full potential at work – it is acknowledged that all three aspects of self-fulfilment are interrelated and impact upon each other to a significant degree, and also that life experiences while enrolled in tertiary education do play a role in developing the complete individual from all aspects.

What kind of individual is most likely to succeed in life? In comparing life success, a reasonable first yardstick is when fresh graduates seek their first employment. The judges here are typically job interviewers and recruitment decision makers. True success however involves far more than merely starting ahead. It includes a continual drive to stay ahead. The successful graduate is therefore defined by two distinct sets of key qualities, abilities and skills. These are listed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Key qualities, abilities and skills that define the successful graduate3 Starting ahead 1. Mastery of subject area, evidenced by excellent academic record 2. Mastery of people skills, evidenced by ability to relate to interviewers and referees 3. Mastery of self, evidenced by self composure, confidence, enthusiasm, ease with self Staying ahead 4. Drive to update own expertise => lifelong learning 5. Initiative – ability to identify work-related problems that need solving 6. Problem-solving skills – ability to define issues and workable solutions 7. Communication skills – oral, written and presentation skills 8. Interpersonal skills – ability to work well with others 9. Intrapersonal skills – ability to manage self Additional qualities that provide long-term competitive edge 10. Cosmopolitan thinking and intercultural competence 11. Technology savvy 12. Leadership, creativity, innovation and enterprise* (Items 2-12 can be considered generic qualities, skills and abilities as they are not discipline-specific). *These qualities may or may not be considered advantageous depending on the context of employment

Traditionally, university curricula have focused on only the first item from the list above, assuming that students should be able to acquire generic skills naturally as a by-product of their discipline-specific studies. The trends described and citations mentioned in our opening section clearly show that this traditional approach no longer meets the needs of 3

Drawn up taking into consideration research data from different countries, as tabulated in Appendix 1.

Page 4 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

the 21st century student and that generic skills need to be intentionally and explicitly integrated within the curricular design for students to gain maximum benefit. To come up with a coherent framework that describes the kind of individual that is most likely to succeed in life, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences provides a useful frame of reference. Of the original seven intelligences identified by Gardner, it would seem that six (with the sole exception of musical intelligence), contribute towards general life and career success. Table 2 below explains this further. Table 2. Multiple Intelligences and their relation to Life Success Gardner’s Intelligence VerbalLinguistic

Definition

Relation to life success

The ability to use words and language

Output: it is obvious that one’s ability to speak and write well directly impact on one’s success. Input: the ability to comprehend a wide variety of literature is less obvious yet no less significant in contributing to overall advancement in life. Another very obvious trait of the successful is the ability to build good business/working relationships, with all levels of corporate/working hierarchy as well as customers/clients. Team work, leadership and cultural awareness fit here. Poor personal and social relationships negatively impact one’s potential, good ones positively so. This is directly related to most on-the-job demands and is especially required for problem solving skills.

Interpersonal

The capacity for person-to-person communications and relationships

LogicalMathematical

The capacity for inductive and deductive thinking and reasoning, as well as the use of numbers and the recognition of abstract patterns The ability to visualize objects and spatial dimensions, and create internal images and pictures The spiritual, inner states of being, self-reflection, and awareness

Visual-Spatial

Intrapersonal

BodyKinaesthetic

The wisdom of the body and the ability to control physical motion

Perhaps not as directly critical, but helpful in managing and organizing information. Attributes such as cosmopolitan thinking fit here. Authenticity, integrity, self-esteem, self-confidence, personal initiative, and self-motivation are all important personal attributes towards success. Good time management, self-awareness and selfreflection are learned intrapersonal skills that are required for true and sustained success. The ability to carry oneself well and to effectively manage body language and gestures provides an advantageous edge to one’s external persona. The inability to keep fit and stay healthy can prove a severe hindrance to success.

The above provides a comprehensive and coherent description of the factors that contribute4 towards an individual’s success in life. The next step is to identify what role, if any, tertiary education plays in developing each of these factors in any individual student. This step helps towards defining a realistically achievable set of expectations of TUC graduates through eliminating attributes that are inherent or only minimally influenced by tertiary education. 4

For completeness, it is noted here that there are other factors that contribute to an individual’s success in life, such as family connections and unexpected opportunities, that are outside the scope of our discussion.

Page 5 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

The role of tertiary education Defining key terms – the importance of semantics Before we can effectively describe the role of tertiary education in moulding the individual for success in life, we will need to clarify the use of key terms as well as related terms, as listed in Tables 3 and 4 below. Table 3. Key terms/definitions abilities power to perform, competence in doing capabilities the facility or potential for an indicated use skills mastery of technique proficiency thorough competence derived from training and practice adept special aptitude as well as proficiency aptitude natural ability competent having requisite or adequate abilities knowledge having information understanding to grasp the nature, significance, or explanation of [knowledge] qualities distinguishing traits, characteristics or attributes attribute inherent characteristic attitude a mental position, feeling or emotion towards a fact or state Table 4. Dichotomy of terms Qualities Attributes Characteristics Traits Identity Who someone is

Capabilities Abilities Skills Proficiencies Competencies What someone can do

It is clear that certain terms describe inherent qualities that can only be indirectly influenced while others describe learned skills. Some terms describe achievement, while others describe aptitude. And finally, some describe who a person is, while others describe what a person can do. An individual’s aptitudes (or lack thereof) are inherent and are thus not changed or shaped by education – however, an individual’s aptitudes should ideally be what draws the individual to certain academic disciplines or career paths. Other inherent qualities/traits/attributes/characteristics are only minimally influenced by the short period one spends in tertiary education. These include most of what we have listed under intrapersonal and bodily-kinaesthetic intelligences, as well as an individual’s inherent aptitudes in all the other areas of intelligence.

Page 6 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Traditionally, the main role of a university education has been to facilitate students’ acquisition of discipline-specific knowledge. The new paradigm places emphasis also on the conscious development and enhancement of generic skills, something which the traditional model assumed occurred naturally as a by-product of the learning experience, perhaps with a little guidance from the university career guidance unit or its equivalent. We have already seen how this traditional model falls short (this paper, page 3, first paragraph; page 4, last paragraph; Nunan, 1999 pp.3-4; AACU, 2002 pp.21-24). Why the term Graduate “Capabilities”? Considering the meanings of the different key terms listed in Table 3, it is most apt to use the term “capabilities” when defining the list of TUC’s expectations of its graduates. This term is realistic and reasonable – by using it, TUC is effectively stating that TUC graduates have been taught and trained and have proven themselves to be able5 to do what is listed, and to presumably be capable of doing so again in future work-related contexts6. The term “capabilities” is thus both precise as well as accurate, and its use reflects well upon the integrity of TUC as an institution. We are now in a position to start building our list of Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities. This is a four-step process: 1. Grouping of key terms/definitions from Table 3 into three categories: those unaffected by education, those slightly influenced or shaped through various experiences while enrolled in tertiary education, and those directly acquired through deliberate study. Table 5 below does this. 2. Acknowledging that while most components of our multiple intelligences from Table 2 are essentially inherent, almost all can be moulded/developed through education, especially those pertaining to skills. The differences in personal aptitudes may lead to differences in levels of skill achievable in any of the given areas, ranging from competent to proficient to truly adept. One goal of a university education should be to bring its graduates to at least a baseline level of competency in all areas. 3. Expanding on Table 1, based on the information in points 1 and 2 above, to build a complete set and subsets of key qualities, abilities and skills that define the successful graduate. This gives us Table 6 below. 4. Identifying from Table 6 those items that are realistically achievable as well as consistent with the values and aims of TUC to come up with a definitive description of Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities. Table 5. Impact of education on personal qualities, abilities and skills Unaffected by education / inherent

Influenced or shaped by life experiences

Attributes, Qualities Aptitudes, Adeptness

Acquired through deliberate study

Skills, Proficiencies, Competencies Attitudes Knowledge and Understanding

Abilities, Capabilities 5 6

(through past performance during the course of their degree studies) Past achievement is but an indicator of future potential.

Page 7 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Table 6. Key qualities, abilities and skills that define the successful graduate (expanded version) Starting ahead 1. Mastery of subject area, evidenced by excellent academic record - Sound understanding of foundational concepts and theories in subject area 2. Mastery of people skills, evidenced by ability to relate to interviewers and referees - Excellence in oral and interpersonal communication skills 3. Mastery of self, evidenced by self composure, confidence, enthusiasm, ease with self Staying ahead 4. Drive to update own expertise - Foundations and skills for lifelong learning - Initiative to continually improve and learn - Ability to comprehend a wide variety of literature - Awareness of contemporary global issues - Learns autonomously - Able to use appropriate tools - Able to acquire and manage information - Able to learn effectively 5. Initiative – ability to identify work-related problems that need solving 6. Problem-solving skills - Defines issues or problems well - Analyses problems comprehensively - Applies knowledge effectively and applies theory to practise - Able to arrive at workable and effective solutions 7. Communication skills - Speaks and writes well - Able to organize, synthesize and present information effectively 8. Interpersonal skills - Understands team dynamics, power of teams and teamwork - Works well with others in a team - Able to assume leadership in small and/or big groups 9. Intrapersonal skills - Able to manage self, personal life, good time management, personal image/professionalism - Works independently in context of tasks to be completed Additional qualities that provide long-term competitive edge 10. Cosmopolitan thinking and intercultural competence - Forms opinions and articulates views from a global perspective 11. Technology savvy - Executive keyboarding - Effective use of ICT and related technologies 12. Leadership, creativity, innovation and enterprise* (Items 2-12 can be considered generic qualities, skills and abilities as they are not discipline-specific). *These qualities may or may not be considered advantageous depending on the context of employment

Page 8 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities Lists of a university’s expectations of its graduates, whatever terminology is used, must be drawn up in context and based on the particular institution’s important values as determined by its top leadership. As such, each institution will have its own unique set of expectations of its graduates. Keeping this in mind, in order to draw up the list of Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities we need to start with values identified as important by TUC’s top leadership. The following list (Table 7 below) is extracted from key statements published in various TUC official documents7. Table 7. Values identified as important by TUC leadership productivity commitment leadership enthusiasm well-roundedness respectful of personal and cultural differences competitiveness initiative resilience responsibility global perspective effort of individuals and teams economic prosperity frankness and sincerity success amenable and amiable excellence supportive and nurturing continual learning healthy balance between professional and personal life integrity enjoyment of work The next step is to collate the values listed in Table 7 with the key qualities, abilities and skills that define the successful graduate in Table 6. This is done in Table 8 below. The final step is to comprehensively and coherently define the list of Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities (TGC). Retaining only those items from Table 8 that are achievable through deliberate study8, including both discipline-specific knowledge as well as generic skills, and organizing them into groupings based on definitions given in Table 2, the description of what it means to be a Taylor’s graduate is uniquely defined as in Table 9 below. Beliefs and assumptions underlying our institutional goal of the concrete integration of TGC within the teaching and learning philosophy of TUC as well as all TUC degree-level curricula are presented following that.

7 8

Appendix 2. See Table 5.

Page 9 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Table 8. Collating TUC values with successful graduate qualities, abilities and skills Mastery of subject area, evidenced by excellent academic record - sound understanding of foundational concepts and theories in subject area Mastery of people skills, evidenced by ability to relate to interviewers and referees Mastery of self, evidenced by self composure, confidence, enthusiasm, ease with self Drive to update own expertise – foundations and skills for lifelong learning - Initiative to continually improve and learn - Ability to comprehend a wide variety of literature - Awareness of contemporary global issues - Learns autonomously - Able to use appropriate tools - Able to acquire and manage information - Able to learn effectively Initiative – ability to identify work-related problems that need solving Problem-solving skills - Defines issues or problems well - Analyses problems comprehensively - Applies knowledge effectively and applies theory to practise - Able to arrive at workable and effective solutions Communication skills - Speaks and writes well - Able to organize, synthesize and present information effectively Interpersonal skills - Understands team dynamics, power of teams and teamwork - Works well with others in a team - Able to assume leadership in small and/or big groups Intrapersonal skills – able to manage self, personal life, good time management, personal image/professionalism Intrapersonal skills – works independently in context of tasks to be completed Technology savvy - Executive keyboarding - Effective use of ICT and related technologies Cosmopolitan thinking and intercultural competence Forms opinions and articulates views from a global perspective

competitiveness excellence frankness and sincerity enthusiasm enjoyment of work continual learning initiative and enthusiasm individual effort excellence enjoyment of learning initiative individual effort responsibility

productivity

well-roundedness excellence teamwork amenable and amiable supportive and nurturing leadership integrity resilience healthy balance between professional and personal life commitment productivity well-roundedness global perspective respectful of personal and cultural differences

Page 10 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Table 9. Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities The teaching and learning approach at Taylor’s University College is focused on developing the Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities in its students, capabilities that encompass the knowledge, cognitive capabilities and soft skills of our graduates.

A Taylor’s graduate has proven ability and is capable in the following areas Discipline-specific knowledge Sound understanding of foundational concepts and theories in subject area Cognitive capabilities Foundations and skills for lifelong learning Learns autonomously Able to acquire and manage information Ability to comprehend a wide variety of literature Awareness of contemporary global issues Problem-solving skills Defines issues or problems well Analyses problems comprehensively Applies knowledge effectively and applies theory to practise Able to arrive at workable and effective solutions Soft skills Communication skills Ability to speak and write well Able to organize, synthesize and present information effectively Interpersonal skills Understands team dynamics, power of teams and teamwork Works with others in a team Able to assume leadership in small and/or big groups Intrapersonal skills Ability to manage time effectively Understands the role of personal image and professionalism at work Works independently in context of tasks to be completed Cosmopolitan thinking and intercultural competence Forms opinions and articulates views from a global perspective Awareness of and sensitivity to cross-cultural differences Technology savvy Executive keyboarding Effective use of ICT and related technologies

The learning environment at Taylor’s is further geared towards nurturing the Taylor’s Core Values: the personal attributes of excellence, integrity, passion for work, interpersonal respect and care, openness in communication and a healthy balance between professional and personal life. Through participation in various optional electives, including co-curricular activities, Taylor’s students may also develop additional knowledge, cognitive capabilities and soft skills other than those listed. These, as well as the Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities above, are recorded by students in the form of individual student portfolios and verified by Taylor’s University College against the set of expectations for each subject, program and co-curricular activity.

Page 11 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Beliefs and assumptions The two fundamental beliefs we hold as an institution are stated here: 1. Tertiary education is fundamental in developing human resource. 2. Tertiary education is capable of equipping individuals with both discipline-specific as well as generic abilities9. There are three underlying assumptions in defining TGC that need further clarification: 1. The TUC student’s goal is employability. 2. The TUC student is self-motivated to learn. 3. All individuals are equally able to achieve desired abilities. These three assumptions are discussed in further detail below. Assumption #1 Student goal is employability There are two alternative goals to being employed for those enrolled in a first degree program: postgraduate study is the first, and wanting to be self-employed or to start one’s own business is the other. Of course the latter goal does not actually require a degree, but many students with such aspirations choose to enroll in a degree program first with the idea that it will better equip them for success in that arena, as well as provide them with some fallback qualifications, just in case. The attainment of a good first degree, on the other hand, is a prerequisite for entry into postgraduate study. There are two main points to take note of here: while the list of TGC (Table 9) is still relevant in both cases, either goal requires certain additional capabilities10 not mentioned in our TGC list; secondly, only a minority of students have either of these goals, the vast majority still enter university with the aim of enhancing their employability11. In view of this, our TGC list can be considered complete as a baseline description of a Taylor’s graduate. The rationale for not including the additional capabilities of originality/creativity/innovation is justified under assumption #3 below12. 9

We have already discussed at length the difference between inherent qualities and those capable of being developed through education and training. 10 Candidates for postgraduate study engage with the body of knowledge in a field as a set of knowledge claims that are essentially contestable, as opposed to the requirement in the working world to merely find real-world applications of discipline-specific knowledge. (Holmes, 2002). The additional set of capabilities required here include “original, independent and critical thinking, and the ability to develop theoretical concepts” (UK GRAD, 2007). Graduates who want to start their own businesses also require additional capabilities, including exceptionally high self-motivation, the ability to think out-of-the-box (creativity/innovation), exceptional resilience and an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit. 11 In lieu of actual figures as to how many first degree holders in Malaysia immediately continue onto a postgraduate degree, Table 10 below provides a rough guide as to the percentage of students continuing to postgraduate studies. Table 10. Malaysian student cumulative enrolment 2000-2005* Level/institution First degree Masters degree Percentage enrolled in postgraduate study Public universities 1,133,539 161,322 14.2% Private universities 484,310 18,247 3.8 % Total 1,617,849 179,569 11.1% *Extracted from MOHE statistics (2007). 12

As are some other qualities or capabilities.

Page 12 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Assumption #2 Students are self-motivated to learn Not all students may be self-motivated. Self-motivation is a fundamental quality without which other qualities may be difficult or even impossible to develop. Students lacking this prerequisite quality may be considered dysfunctional – however such students do exist13 and in such cases this dysfunctionality needs to be rectified in order for them to fully develop the TGC and for TUC to authoritatively say that every single Taylor’s graduate does indeed possess the complete set of TGC14. Assumption #3 All individuals are equally able to achieve desired abilities Individuals have varying capacities for learning and achievement15 (Gottfredson, 1998, 2003). TGC does not discount these differences but rather offers a baseline set of capabilities that potential employers can count on from TUC graduates, that serve to distinguish TUC graduates from graduates of other institutions. TGC adds both real as well as perceived value to TUC graduates (Nunan, 1999 p.9). TGC essentially provides assurance of TUC graduates’ competence in all areas listed, while acknowledging that a portion of its graduates will achieve levels of proficiency in some or all areas and an even smaller proportion will be truly adept, again in some or all areas. This assurance, which essentially upholds the integrity of the TUC brand, is the reason why inherent qualities such as true creativity and innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, real leadership qualities, integrity or authenticity have not been included in the list of TGC – it would be impossible for TUC to guarantee that each and every one of its graduates possess all these essentially inherent (though not to say insusceptible to development) qualities. By restricting the list of TGC to achievable as well as verifiable capabilities, TGC addresses the issues raised by opponents of the so-called “key skills agenda” (Holmes, 1998) and remains highly applicable in the context for which it is designed.

Implementation Strategies The final section of the paper integrates TGC within the teaching and learning philosophy of TUC. Our model is student-centred as well as intentional-learning based, which directly impacts how discipline-specific content is delivered as well as how students are evaluated. This in turn affects the design of our curricula and introduces also the idea of mapping students’ acquisition of generic skills through the use of a cumulative student portfolio.

Typically they may be enrolled in an undergraduate degree of their parents’ choice, not their own, or they may severely lack confidence in their own ability to succeed. The reasons for lack of motivation could be any of several reasons and these will need to be discovered and addressed on an individual basis. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to discuss strategies for dealing with this at this juncture, however such strategies are envisioned to utilize the student advisor/counsellor system. 14 This is an appropriate juncture to reiterate the already cited quotation (p.3, para.2), “It is contended that, where institutions can present credible information about their commitment to developing qualities in graduates and students can provide evidence of the attainment of these qualities, both the institution and its students will be advantaged in a buyer’s market for graduates.” (Nunan, 1999 p.9). 15 This topic is undoubtedly a sensitive as well as a potentially controversial one, especially in terms of publications discussing the issues involved such as “The Bell Curve” (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994).

Page 13 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Teaching and learning philosophy The central focus of the TUC teaching and learning philosophy is on developing the complete set of TGC in all its students. This goal aligns itself naturally with the concept of student-centred learning, which focuses on the student's needs, abilities, interests and learning styles with the teacher as a facilitator of learning. Graduate capabilities are best developed when they are embedded in the process and content of learning (Hart et al, 1999 p.304; Gibbs and McAlpine, 2006). Such embedding requires a thoughtful review of the learning objectives, teaching approaches, and assessment methods to ensure the development of authentic learning environments (Hart et al, 1999 p.304). Students also need to develop an explicit understanding of their own approach to learning as well as confidence in their discipline-specific knowledge base in order to confidently address generic skills as well as meta-cognitive functions – this is what is meant by “intentional learning” (Hart et al, 1999 p.302; AACU, 2002 p.21). This student-centred as well as intentional-learning based teaching and learning approach is characterized by the following: 1. Learning environment - An existing knowledge base, opportunities to reflect on and to regulate learning, personal motivation, individual development, and the social context of learning describing aspects of the learning environment that reflect a learning rather than a teaching orientation. (Hart et al, 1999 p.304). - Authentic learning environments that are purposefully designed to simulate situations in which students may ultimately be employed, linking experience, previous understandings, and new knowledge in a way that is readily apparent to the learner. (Hart et al, 1999 p.304). 2. Learning process The development of graduate capabilities is a spiral rather than a linear process requiring reflection and structured opportunities to compare variety in experience. (Hart et al, 1999 p.304). This reflects a constructivist view of learning that encourages students to use active techniques (experiments as well as real-world problem solving) to create more knowledge and to constantly assess how the activity is helping them gain understanding. This continuous reflection helps the student’s ideas to gain complexity and power, and develops increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information, with the primary goal being to help students to learn how to learn (Grennon Brooks, 2004). 3. Learning strategies - Variety in learning opportunities that allows students to experiment with integrating and applying skills and knowledge and then reflecting in a structured manner on the relative success of similar solutions in different situations. (Hart et al, 1999 p.303 and 307). - Consideration of different student learning styles when planning varied learning opportunities as well as methods of student evaluation/assessment.

Page 14 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

4. Learning facilitator (teacher’s role) One of the teacher's main roles becomes to encourage this learning and reflection process, so that the teacher helps the student to construct knowledge rather than to reproduce a series of facts. The constructivist teacher provides tools such as problemsolving and inquiry-based learning activities with which students formulate and test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, and pool and convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning environment. (Grennon Brooks, 2004).

Curricular design Hart et al (1999 p.307) suggest a two-pronged strategy for explicitly addressing the focus on graduate capabilities throughout the curriculum: 1. University staff need to ensure that students experience a variety of learning experiences and have structured opportunities for reflection and interaction with other students (peer consultation) throughout the course of their studies. 2. Students need assistance to develop profiles of their learning experiences from the commencement of their course programmes. Ideally, this individual account of professional development should be integrated as a core component of the curriculum. These strategies, and also our entire TGC initiative, are consistent with the requirements of the Malaysian National Accreditation Board. The Malaysian Qualifications Framework defines a general set of expectations of a Bachelors (Honours) degree holders (LAN, 2006 p.18), including broad statements as to discipline-specific knowledge as well as generic skills, but does not stipulate how the attainment of such skills should/can be verified. Appendix 3 shows that TGC not only meets these specific LAN requirements but exceeds them in a non-irrelevant way, defining a truly distinctive Taylor’s graduate. Curriculum design is also required to incorporate the following aspects (LAN, 2004 p.2): Vision; Mission; Goals; Objectives; Learning outcomes; Curriculum content; Organization of the curriculum; Teaching and learning strategies; Assessment and evaluation. Appendix 4 (LAN, 2004 p.4) reproduces the distinctions between “objectives” and “learning outcomes” – this is directly relevant for our current purposes as the “learning outcomes” are where we will be able to specify our TGC agenda throughout new TUC degree level curricula. Our TGC initiative however goes significantly further than merely specifying LAN-required learning outcomes: using previously developed models (UNSW, 2005; Adelaide, 2001), we specifically state expectations regarding the progress which students will be expected to make towards achieving the graduate capabilities in each phase of the new curricula, including a summary of the development of each capability over all phases of the curriculum, with all capabilities being cumulative so that once developed in any phase they are expected to be refined and exercised in subsequent phases. The expectations in the different phases provide a framework for assessment. Further to this, we provide templates for student’s to build their individual portfolios that map their development of TGC throughout the course of their studies. These student portfolios should then be endorsed or verified by the university against the set of expectations for each subject and program.

Page 15 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Knowledge base Three sets of documents will need to be prepared in tandem: the tables mapping the development of each capability over the entire program of study; the tables stating the expectations for TGC within each academic year of a program; and the individual subject syllabi, with the individual subject syllabi initially focusing on only the objectives and learning outcomes as explained in Appendix 4. The following (Table 11) is adapted from the model by UNSW (2005). Details for specific degree programs will need to be filled in by program heads and subject specialists. The development of each capability over the entire curriculum is mapped and indicated by a black dot within the grid on the right hand side of the table. Table 11. Development of each Capability over the entire program of study* 1: Sound understanding of foundational concepts and theories in subject area

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Please fill in specific details of particular discipline/subject area here

2: Foundations and skills for lifelong learning Learns autonomously 1.2.1 2.2.5 3.2.2 4.2.1 Able to acquire and manage information 1.2.2 Ability to comprehend a wide variety of literature 1.2.3 Awareness of contemporary global issues 1.2.4

*Similar tables are required for all eight capability areas. Details to be included within the tables are dependent on discipline-specific content.

The next step is to determine the achievement level of each capability for each phase (academic year) of the program of study. The following (Table 12) is also adapted from the model by UNSW (2005). Details for specific degree programs will need to be filled in by program heads and subject specialists. When drawing up specific program expectations, it is important to always keep in mind the TUC teaching and learning philosophy (this paper, pp.14-15) and the fact that graduate capabilities are best developed when they are embedded in the process and content of discipline-specific learning. The other point to consider is that not every single course within a particular program needs to address every single graduate capability – it is the cumulative experience of the student that develops the entire set of TGC in this individual by the time they are ready for graduation.

Page 16 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Table 12. First Year Expectations for Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities* 1.1 Sound understanding of foundational concepts and theories in subject area In relation to themes and content areas which have been studied, the student:

1.2 Foundations and skills for lifelong learning

1.3 Problem-solving skills

1.4 Communication skills

Learns autonomously 1.2.1

Defines issues or problems well 1.3.1

Ability to speak well 1.4.1

Able to acquire and manage information 1.2.2 Ability to comprehend a wide variety of literature 1.2.3 Awareness of contemporary global issues 1.2.4

1.5 Interpersonal skills

1.6 Intrapersonal skills

Understands team dynamics, power of teams and teamwork 1.5.1

Ability to manage time effectively 1.6.1

Works with others in a team 1.5.2

Understands professionalism at work 1.6.2

Able to assume leadership in small and/or big groups 1.5.3

Analyses problems comprehensively 1.3.2 Applies knowledge effectively and applies theory to practise 1.3.3

Ability to write well 1.4.2 Able to organize, synthesize and present information effectively 1.4.3

Able to arrive at workable and effective solutions 1.3.4

1.7 Cosmopolitan thinking and intercultural competence Forms opinions and articulates views from a global perspective 1.7.1 Awareness of and sensitivity to cross-cultural differences 1.7.2

1.8 Technology savvy

Executive keyboarding 1.8.1 Effective use of ICT and related technologies 1.8.2

Works independently in context of tasks to be completed 1.6.3

*similar tables for second, third and final year expectations are required.

The information to be included in Tables 11 and 12 will need to be correlated with each other and also with individual subject syllabi.

Skills base The final set of documents are the templates for the student’s TGC portfolios (Table 13), adapted from this model by Adelaide University (2001), that allow the student to map their own development of TGC during the course of their studies. The explanation for these documents is extracted directly from the Adelaide (2001 p.8) document. “Form 1 is suitable to record your skills development during your program of study. Mapping your skills will help you be more aware of the particular transferable skills involved in your learning tasks and where you are in your skills development. It will help you work more effectively with your teachers to develop these skills. It will also help you, as graduates, to know your skills and how to promote them to prospective employers.” “Form 2 is suitable for summarising transferable skills developed over an entire program of study that is the perfect complement to your Degree Certificate or Academic Transcript. A Form 2 Portfolio is more suitable for job applications than Form 1, but it is best completed at the end of your program of study. If you build up a Form 1 Portfolio, Form 2 can be very easily derived from it.”

Page 17 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Table 13. Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities Portfolio* PERSONAL TAYLOR’S GRADUATE CAPABILITIES PORTFOLIO course by course, year by year This portfolio proforma is provided by Taylor’s University College. The details within are the work of the individual student

Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Program of Study: …………………………………………………………………………………………. YEAR 1 COURSES Year: ………... Course: ……………………………………………………………………………… Task

TGC developed Sound understanding of foundational concepts and theories in subject area:

Foundations and skills for lifelong learning:

Problem-solving skills:

Communication skills

Interpersonal skills:

Intrapersonal skills:

Cosmopolitan thinking and intercultural competence:

Technology savvy:

REPEAT AS NECESSARY

*one portfolio proforma should be filled out for every course, with individual tasks within the courses to be filled in by the student, resulting in one set of documents for each year of study.

References AACU (Association of American Colleges and Universities). 2002. Greater Expectations. A New Vision for Learning as a Nation goes to College. National Panel Report. Washington DC: AACU. (ISBN 0-911696-92-x). AACU (Association of American Colleges and Universities). 2007. College Learning for the New Global Century, a report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise. Washington DC: AACU. (ISBN 9780-9779210-4-1). Adelaide (Adelaide University). 2001. Transferable Skills Mapping for Students. Faculty of Sciences, Adelaide University.

Page 18 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Azizah, T. 2004. “Facing the Realities of the World of Work”. Workshop on Enhancing Graduate Employability in a Globalised Economy. 26 July 2004, Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit, Malaysia Prime Minister’s Department. Chang, M. 2004. “Why some Graduates are more Marketable than others”. Workshop on Enhancing Graduate Employability in a Globalised Economy. 26 July 2004, Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit, Malaysia Prime Minister’s Department. Dawson, I., Jackson, A. and Rhodes, M. 2006. Graduate Skills and Recruitment in the City. Financial Services Skill Council. Guildhall: City of London. DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia). 2002. Employability Skills for the Future. Report. Commonwealth of Australia. Gibbs, G. and McAlpine, L. 2006. “Developing graduate’s skills and accrediting graduates to HEA professional teaching standards: combining two initiatives through preparing for academic practice”. Workshop conducted at UK Grad Fifth Annual Conference. 7 September 2006, London: SRHE, UKCGE, Universities UK and UUK Europe Unit. Goldsworthy, Ashley. (Ed.). 2003. Developing Generic Skills: Examples of Best Practice. B-HERT News, Issue 16, April 2003. Available at: http://www.bhert.com/documents/B-HERTNEWSNo.16_001.pdf Goldsworthy, Ashley. (Ed.). 2006. Emerging Skills: 2020 and Beyond – What will they be and as a nation how are we placed? B-HERT News, Issue 23, March 2006. Available at: http://www.bhert.com/documents/B-HERTNEWS23.pdf Gottfredson, L.S. 1998. “The General Intelligence Factor”. Scientific American Presents. 9(4): 24-29. Gottfredson, L.S. 2003. The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment. 11(2): 115-135. Grennon Brooks, J. 2004. Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Thirteen Ed Online, Educational Broadcasting Corporation. Available at: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html Hart, B., Bowden, J. and Watters, J. 1999. “Graduate Capabilities: a Framework for Assessing Course Quality”. Higher Education in Europe, XXIV: 301-308. Hay, I., Orrell, J. and Torjul, P. 2003. “Well What Do You Know? A Skills Portfolio Project.” In Developing Generic Skills: Examples of Best Practice. B-HERT News, Issue 16, April 2003. Pp.11-12. Herrnstein, R. and Murray, C. 1994. The Bell Curve. New York: Simon & Schuster. Holmes, Leonard. 1998. “One more time, transferable skills don't exist ... (and what we should do about it).” Presented at Higher Education for Capability conference, 'Embedding Key Skills Across the Curriculum'. Nene College, Northampton. 27th February 1998. Holmes, Leonard. 2001. “Reconsidering Graduate Employability: The Graduate Identity Approach”, in Quality in Higher Education, vol 7, no 2, 2001, pp. 111-120.

Page 19 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Holmes, Leonard. 2002. “Reframing the skills agenda in higher education: graduate identity and the double warrant”, in Preston, D. (Ed.), University of Crisis. New York: Rodopi Press. Hopper, R. (Ed.). 2002. Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education. World Bank. (ISBN 0-8213-5143-5). LAN (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara). 2004. Guidelines on Developing Learning Outcomes. Petaling Jaya: National Accreditation Board, Malaysia. LAN (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara). 2006. Malaysian Qualifications Framework. Petaling Jaya: National Accreditation Board, Malaysia. Lee Cheng Suan. 2004. “Economic Growth & Employment Generation: Employers’ Perspective”. Workshop on Enhancing Graduate Employability in a Globalised Economy. 26 July 2004, Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit, Malaysia Prime Minister’s Department. Markwell, Donald. (Ed.). 2003. Improving Teaching and Learning in Universities. BHERT News, Issue 18, November 2003. Available at: http://www.bhert.com/documents/b-hertnews18.pdf MOHE (Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia) official website. 2007. Jumlah Enrolmen Pelajar di Institusi Pengajian Tinggi, tahun 2000 – 2005. Available at: http://www.mohe.gov.my/statistik_v3/stat_pdf.php?no=1_2_makro.pdf Nunan, Ted. 1999. “Graduate Qualities, Employment and Mass Higher Education.” HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999. Otter, Sue. 1997. The ability based curriculum: some snapshots of progress in key skills in higher education. Oxford Brookes University, UK. Available: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/6_archive/abc/abcconts.html Prospects.ac.uk. 2007. Employability and Myths Uncovered. Manchester: HECSU, Graduate Prospects Ltd and AGCAS. Available at: http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/What_do_graduates_do_ _2007/Employability_and_myths_uncovered/p!ebfleki UK GRAD website (www.grad.ac.uk). 2007. Just for Postgrads: Evaluate Your Skills. Cambridge, UK: UK GRAD Programme®. Available at: http://www.grad.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Resources/Just_for_Postgrads /Managing_yourself/Evaluate_your_skills/p!elkimXX Ungku Harun Al’Rashid Ahmad. 2004. “Meeting the Demands of Global Firms: Survey Finding”. Workshop on Enhancing Graduate Employability in a Globalised Economy. 26 July 2004, Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit, Malaysia Prime Minister’s Department. UNSW (University of New South Wales). 2005. Expectations for the Level of Achievement of the Graduate Capabilities in Each Phase of the Curriculum. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales.

Page 20 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

APPENDIX 1. Comparison of desirable graduate qualities, abilities and skills Abstract qualities

Australiaa, b Balanced attitude to work and home Ability to handle pressure Motivation Adaptability and flexibility

UKc, d Appropriate behaviour and personal presentation, social maturity Commitment Resilience Motivation

USAe Ethical reasoning and action Civic knowledge and engagement

Written communication Interpersonal communication Networking

Communication skills: written, oral and presentation Business writing skills Social interaction skills

Written and oral communication

Teamwork

Teamwork Leadership potential Problem solving

Teamwork

Soft skills

Problem solving

Initiative and enterprise Planning and organising

Innovation and fresh insight Time management

Self management Lifelong learning

Self management Proven intellectual ability

Technology Numeracy Ability to work as an individual Possess international perspectives

Computer literacy

Hard skills

DEST, 2002 p.58. Nunan, 1999 p.4. c Otter, 1997 Section 2. b

Problem solving Inquiry and analysis Critical and creative thinking

Foundations and skills for lifelong learning Information literacy Quantitative literacy

Malaysiaf, g, h, i Confidence Dedication Decisiveness Integrity Disciplined Flexibility Enthusiasm Multi-skilled Relevant experience English fluency Communication skills: written, oral and presentation Negotiation skills Business writing Interpersonal skills Teamwork Leadership potential Problem solving Analytical skills Critical and creative thinking Resourcefulness Innovative Planning and administrative skills Time management Learning ability Easily trainable ICT skills Numeracy Independence

Cultural understanding and foreign language skills

Intercultural Bi/multi-lingual knowledge and Intercultural competence Thorough study of Broad knowledge human culture, physical and natural world Basic awareness and Synthesis and Technical skills knowledge, including advanced Relevant degrees current developments, in accomplishment disciplinary area across general and specialized studies d g Dawson et al., 2006 pp.22, 34 Azizah, 2004. e h AACU, 2007 p.3. Lee, 2004. f i Ungku Harun, 2004. Chang, 2004.

Page 21 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

APPENDIX 2. Key statements in official documents reflecting TUC Core Values “At Taylor’s College, we believe in educating the youth of the world to take their productive place as leaders in the global community.” “Since its inception in 1969, Taylor’s University College has undertaken the important task of developing our nation’s youth into well-rounded, competitive and resilient contributors with global perspectives to the development of Malaysia’s economic growth and prosperity.” “Our curriculum and learning outcomes are designed to equip our graduates, not only to meet the expectations of industry and their chosen profession, but to possess the necessary communication, leadership and lifelong learning skills that are essential for success in the fast-changing global environment.” “Our Core Values: We believe in - being dedicated to a culture of excellence o we desire to be the best that we can be in the realisation of our personal and organisational aspirations o we will continually look for ways to be better than we were before, adopting continual learning as the path towards excellence in every aspect of what we do - acting with integrity o we will be well intentioned and consistent in everything we do o through adherence to a code of conduct that reflects honesty, accountability and ethical practice, we build and sustain a healthy culture of openness and trust within the organisation and society at large - being passionate in what we do o we have a belief that what we do is meaningful and fulfilling o passion commits us to our work o through our commitment and enthusiasm we inspire others - respecting and caring for each other o we will promote an environment where every member is valued and appreciated, where personal and cultural differences are respected and members have a safe place for expression o we will encourage our people to exercise initiative and responsibility and the effort of individuals and teams will always be recognised - openness in communication o openness in communication means we need to be frank and sincere in our exchanges o conducted in an amenable and amiable manner, it promotes trust and understanding - creating enjoyable environments o we will create environments that are supportive, nurturing and conducive to their purpose o we are also committed to creating an employee friendly work environment that allow for a healthy balance between our professional and personal lives o these commitments will enable us to attract and retain the best qualified people and create a workplace of which we can be proud and where we can always enjoy our work while carrying out our mission”

Page 22 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

APPENDIX 3. Comparison of LAN Bachelor (Honours) graduating requirements against Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities. LAN requirement Corresponding TGC menunjukkan pengetahuan dan kefahaman prinsip-prinsip asas sesuatu bidang yang diperoleh daripada buku teks lanjutan dan di sempadan ilmu

Discipline-specific knowledge Sound understanding of foundational concepts and theories in subject area

exhibits knowledge and understanding of basic principles in a specific discipline, obtained from advanced text books and frontiers of knowledge dapat mengguna ilmu pengetahuan dan kefahaman dengan kaedah yang menunjukkan keprofesionalan dalam pekerjaan

Applies knowledge effectively and applies theory to practise Ability to comprehend a wide variety of literature

able to use knowledge and understanding in ways that show professionalism at work berhujah dan menyelesaikan masalah dalam bidang gives opinions and solves problems in field of study mempunyai teknik dan kebolehan mencari dan mengguna data untuk membuat keputusan yang mengambil kira isu sosial, saintifik dan etika yang relevan has ability and techniques to find and use data to make decisions that take into account relevant social, scientific and ethical issues cekap berkomunikasi dan dapat menyampaikan maklumat, idea, masalah dan penyelesaian kepada pakar dan bukan pakar effective communicator and able to present information, ideas, problems and solutions to experts and laypeople mempunyai kemahiran berpasukan dan interpersonal yang bersesuaian dengan pekerjaan workplace teamwork and interpersonal skills mempunyai kemahiran belajar untuk meneruskan pengajian lanjutan dengan autonomi yang tinggi

Problem-solving skills Defines issues or problems well Analyses problems comprehensively Able to arrive at workable and effective solutions Able to acquire and manage information

Communication skills Ability to speak and write well Able to organize, synthesize and present information effectively

Interpersonal skills Understands team dynamics, power of teams and teamwork Works with others in a team Foundations and skills for lifelong learning Learns autonomously

highly autonomous learning skills suited for further education Awareness of contemporary global issues Able to assume leadership in small and/or big groups Intrapersonal skills Ability to manage time effectively Understands the role of personal image and professionalism at work Works independently in context of tasks to be completed Cosmopolitan thinking and intercultural competence Forms opinions and articulates views from a global perspective Awareness of and sensitivity to cross-cultural differences Technology savvy Executive keyboarding Effective use of ICT and related technologies

Page 23 of 24

Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities, a Conceptual Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

APPENDIX 4. Why do we need to develop the objectives as well as the learning outcomes? (LAN, 2004 p..4 section 2.2). Objectives Objectives should be developed:

Learning Outcomes Learning outcomes should be developed:

•

to ensure the changes of behaviour in students in the process of teaching and learning.

•

to evaluate the performance of students on what they know and can do at the end of their courses.

•

to determine the topics, concepts, generalizations, or the content of other elements to be covered in the courses of study and subjects.

•

to ensure that students can manage their learning.

•

to ensure that what is taught and learned is intentional.

•

to know what is supposed to be changed.

•

to improve as well as to enhance the quality of learning.

•

to plan towards improving the quality of education and the effectiveness of the institutions.

•

to know where the human resources can be invested.

•

to prepare the accountability that can be put forward to the outside constituents.

•

to prepare guidance in developing and designing the curriculum and instructions, which comprise the contents and students behaviour in the process of teaching and learning.

Page 24 of 24

PART D TEACHING AND LEARNING FRAMEWORK (TLF)

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Taylor’s University College Teaching and Learning Framework The aim of this paper is to present the Taylor’s University College (TUC) Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) that integrates the newly developed Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities (TGC). This paper is presented in the following logical progression: 1. Goals of the TUC TLF 2. Philosophy behind the TLF 3. General approach adopted 4. Specific strategies and instructional models 5. Coherent plans for implementation 6. Anticipated challenges and possible resolutions

Goals The primary goal of the TUC TLF is to develop the complete set of TGC in all our students, capabilities that encompass the knowledge, cognitive capabilities and soft skills of our graduates and that are believed to be essential for sustained individual success in life and work. The TUC TLF is both a guide to effective teaching for staff and a presentation of the central role of learning at TUC to the public. The purpose of the TUC TLF is to: • highlight TUC’s aspirations for teaching and learning; • outline the assumptions, expectations and responsibilities relating to good practice; • provide a framework for Schools to develop their own Teaching and Learning Action Plans; and • provide a framework for monitoring progress within Schools towards desired goals related to teaching and learning

Philosophy The TUC teaching and learning philosophy is student-centred as well as intentionallearning based. The goal of developing the TGC in all TUC students aligns itself naturally with the concept of student-centred learning, which focuses on the student's needs, abilities, interests and learning styles with the teacher as a facilitator of learning. Students also need to develop an explicit understanding of their own approach to learning as well as confidence in their discipline-specific knowledge base in order to confidently address generic skills as well as meta-cognitive functions – this is what is meant by “intentional learning” (Hart et al, 1999 p.302; AACU, 2002 p.21).

Page 1 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Student-Centred Learning Student-centred learning, also known as learner-centred learning, is well-defined by McCombs (2001 p.186), “Learner-centred is the perspective that couples a focus on individual learners - their heredity, experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, interests, capacities, and needs – with a focus on learning – the best available knowledge about learning and how it occurs and about teaching practices that are most effective in promoting the highest levels of motivation, learning, and achievement for all learners. This dual focus then informs and drives educational decision making.” This definition is based on the Learner-Centred Psychological Principles (APA, 1997) about learners and learning. These principles provide firm research-validated knowledge about learners and learning, the understanding of which is crucial to any student-centred teaching and learning framework. The principles are thus directly relevant to our TUC TLF. The Learner-Centred Psychological Principles are reproduced in Table 1 below. Table 1. Learner-Centred Psychological Principles (APA, 1997) COGNITIVE AND METACOGNITIVE FACTORS Principle 1: Nature of the learning process The learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it is an intentional process of constructing meaning from information and experience. Principle 2: Goals of the learning process The successful learner, over time and with support and instructional guidance, can create meaningful, coherent representations of knowledge. Principle 3: Construction of knowledge The successful learner can link new information with existing knowledge in meaningful ways. Principle 4: Strategic thinking The successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies to achieve complex learning goals. Principle 5: Thinking about thinking Higher-order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations facilitate creative and critical thinking. Principle 6: Context of learning Learning is influenced by environmental factors, including culture, technology, and instructional practices. MOTIVATIONAL AND AFFECTIVE FACTORS Principle 7: Motivational and emotional influences on learning What and how much is learned is influenced by the learner’s motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn, is influenced by the individual’s emotional states, beliefs, interests and goals, and habits of thinking.

Principle 8: Intrinsic motivation to learn The learner’s creativity, higher-order thinking, and natural curiosity all contribute to motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and difficulty, relevant to personal interests, and providing for personal choice and control. Principle 9: Effects of motivation on effort Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided practice. Without learners’ motivation to learn, the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely without coercion. DEVELOPMENTAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS Principle 10: Developmental influence on learning As individuals develop, they encounter different opportunities and experience different constraints for learning. Learning is most effective when differential development within and across physical, intellectual, emotional, and social domains is taken into account. Principle 11: Social influences on learning Learning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES FACTORS Principle 12: Individual differences in learning Learners’ different strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning are a function of prior experience and heredity. Principle 13: Learning and diversity Learning is most effective when differences in learners’ linguistic, cultural, and social backgrounds are taken into account. Principle 14: Standards and assessment Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing the learner and learning progress— including diagnostic, process, and outcome assessment—are integral parts of the learning process.

Page 2 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Intentional Learning The value in incorporating the graduate capabilities concept within the curricula lies in its purposefulness being explicitly made known to students from the very beginning. “Becoming such an intentional learner means developing self-awareness about the reason for study, the learning process itself, and how education is used.” (AACU, 2002 p.22). This principle is a focused articulation of principles 1, 2, 3 and 7 from the LearnerCentred Psychological Principles listed in Table 1, but can also be considered an articulation of the cognitive theory of learning where “Learning is viewed as an active process that occurs within the learner and which can be influenced by the learner” (Dabbagh, 2007) and “Emphasis is on the building blocks of knowledge (e.g. identifying prerequisite relationships of content).” (Ibid).

Approach The student-centred intentional-learning based teaching and learning approach is characterized by the following: 1. Learning environment - An existing knowledge base, opportunities to reflect on and to regulate learning, personal motivation, individual development, and the social context of learning describing aspects of the learning environment that reflect a learning rather than a teaching orientation. (Hart et al, 1999 p.304). - Authentic learning environments that are purposefully designed to simulate situations in which students may ultimately be employed, linking experience, previous understandings, and new knowledge in a way that is readily apparent to the learner. (Ibid). 2. Learning process The development of graduate capabilities is a spiral rather than a linear process requiring reflection and structured opportunities to compare variety in experience. (Hart et al, 1999 p.304). This reflects a constructivist view of learning that encourages students to use active techniques (experiments as well as real-world problem solving) to create more knowledge and to constantly assess how the activity is helping them gain understanding. This continuous reflection helps the student’s ideas to gain complexity and power, and develops increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information, with the primary goal being to help students to learn how to learn (Grennon Brooks, 2004). 3. Learning strategies - Variety in learning opportunities that allows students to experiment with integrating and applying skills and knowledge and then reflecting in a structured manner on the relative success of similar solutions in different situations. (Hart et al, 1999 p.303 and 307). - Consideration of different student learning styles when planning varied learning opportunities as well as methods of student evaluation/assessment.

Page 3 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Learning Environment Eight mutually interacting characteristics provide guidelines for designing constructivist learning environments (Jonassen, 2006) that are completely consistent with our TUC TLF goals and philosophy – the constructivist learning environment is: active, constructive, collaborative, intentional, complex, contextual, conversational, and reflective. The following descriptions of the characteristics are extracted from Jonassen (2006) for our purposes. All these need to be taken into consideration when designing TUC curricula and specific teaching and learning approaches. Active: Learners are engaged by the learning process in conscious processing of information where they are responsible for the result. Through formal and informal apprenticeships and communities and play and work, learners develop skills and knowledge which they then share with other members of those communities with whom they learned and practiced those skills. In all of these situations, learners actively manipulate the objects and tools of the trade and learn by reflecting on what they have done. Constructive: Learners integrate new ideas with prior knowledge in order to make sense or reconcile a discrepancy, curiosity, or puzzlement. They construct their own meaning for different phenomena. The models that they build to explain things are initially simple and unsophisticated, but with experience, support, and reflection, they become increasingly complex. Collaborative: Learners naturally work in learning and knowledge building communities, exploiting each others skills while providing social support and modeling and observing the contributions of each member. Intentional: When learners are actively and willfully trying to achieve a cognitive goal they think and learn more. Learning environments need to support learners in articulating what their goals are in any learning situation. Complex: Real-world problems include multiple components and multiple perspectives and cannot be solved in predictable ways. Students must be engaged in solving complex and ill-structured problems as well as simple problems. Unless learners are required to engage in higher order thinking, they will develop oversimplified views of the world.

Page 4 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University College

Contextual: Learning tasks are situated in meaningful real world tasks or simulated in case-based or problem-based learning environments rather than abstracting ideas in rules that are memorized and then applied to other canned problems. Knowledge and skills are taught as in real life, useful contexts and providing new and different contexts for learners to practice using those ideas. Conversational: Learning is inherently a social, dialogical process: given a problem or task, people naturally seek out opinions and ideas from others. Technologies can support this conversational process by connecting learners across locations. When learners become part of knowledge building communities both in and outside of the classroom, they learn that there are multiple ways of viewing the world and multiple solutions to most problems. Reflective: Learners are required to articulate their actions, decisions, strategies and answers. When they articulate what they have learned and reflect on the processes and decisions that were entailed by the process, they understand more and are better able to use the knowledge that they have constructed when faced with new situations. The relationship among these characteristics is illustrated in Figure 1. Each impacts upon all the others and none occurs in isolation.

Figure 1. Constructivist Learning Environment Characteristics (Jonassen, 2006)

Learning Process The key to designing an effective teaching approach lies in a thorough understanding of the learning process. We have already considered the Learner-Centred Psychological Principles (this paper, page 2) as our initial step towards a better understanding of learners and learning.

ÂŠ 2007 Taylorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University College, Malaysia

Page 5 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

The goal of our TUC TLF is to develop the TGC, embedded as an integral part of the curriculum and not superficially superimposed in any way. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom's (1964) original taxonomy by combining both the cognitive process (process used to learn) and knowledge dimensions (knowledge to be learned). This new expanded taxonomy is not only useful in understanding the learning process but also central to designing efficiently aligned learning objectives, teaching approaches and assessment methods. The revised taxonomy is presented in Table 2 below. Table 2. The Revised Taxonomy Table (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001) The Knowledge Dimension Factual Conceptual Procedural Metacognitive

Remember (Knowledge)

The Cognitive Process Dimension Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate (Comprehension) (Application) (Analysis) (Evaluation)

Create (Synthesis)

Using Table 2 above, the objectives for an entire subject can be plotted out, ensuring that all levels of the cognitive process are used and that students learn different types of knowledge, while simultaneously ensuring that every subject syllabus is aligned to the overall goal of developing the TGC. Using such detailed objectives helps students to better understand the purpose of each activity by clarifying the student’s activity (Cruz, 2003) and is consistent with our intentional learning approach. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) also list specific verbs to be used when writing objectives for each column of the cognitive process dimension that define explicit1 performance to be carried out by the learner. These verbs are listed in Table 3 below, which also integrates the revised hierarchy2 of learning behaviours in the cognitive domain. Table 3. Revised Hierarchy for Bloom’s Cognitive Learning Domain Complexity

Process Synthesis Evaluation Analysis

Application Comprehension

Knowledge

Description builds a pattern from diverse elements judges the value of information separates information into part for better understanding applying knowledge to a new situation understanding information recall of data

Specific verbs Create: generating, planning, producing Evaluate: checking, critiquing Analyze: Differentiating, organizing, attributing Apply: Executing, implementing Understand: Interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, explaining Remember: Recognizing, Recalling

This reiterates the importance of explicit learning outcomes being made known to students if they are to be intentional learners. 2 The six categories are arranged on scale of difficulty, meaning that a learner who is able to perform at the higher levels of the taxonomy, is demonstrating a more complex level of cognitive thinking (Martin, 2001).

Page 6 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Savery and Duffy (1996) characterize the constructivist view of the learning process in terms of three primary propositions: 1. Understanding is in our interactions with the environment – what the learner understands is a function of the content, the context, the activity of the learner, and the goals of the learner. 2. Cognitive conflict or puzzlement is the stimulus for learning and determines the organization and nature of what is learned – we have already read an explanation of this in the section on learning environments: “Learners integrate new ideas with prior knowledge in order to make sense or reconcile a discrepancy, curiosity, or puzzlement.” (Jonassen, 2006). 3. Knowledge evolves through social negotiation and through the evaluation of the viability of individual understandings. The important consideration here is that all views, or all constructions, are not equally viable – understandings must be tested to determine how adequately they allow us to interpret and function in our world. Our social environment provides alternative views and additional information against which we can test the viability of our understanding and in building the set of propositions (knowledge) compatible with those understandings. VonGlasersfeld (1989) states that “The analysis of the process of linguistic communication shows that knowledge cannot simply be transferred by means of words. Verbally explaining a problem does not lead to understanding…”. Bencze’s (2005) teaching framework based on constructivism provides an appropriate model for our purposes: “The framework (Figure 2) assumes that learners often already possess 'ideas', such as concepts, skills & attitudes, relating to those teachers plan to teach. Because such student ideas affect, often negatively, their reactions to new experiences, teachers should first encourage students to express them. Because students may not already have some important ideas, however, teachers need to help students to learn new ones. Finally, the teacher should encourage students to judge which ideas are best for them. This three-phase cycle (which need not be strictly followed) can then be repeated. Moreover, similar 'mini-cycles' (around the larger cycle) can be intermeshed with the main cycle. In other words, teachers can encourage students to reconstruct conceptions in at least two different domains (e.g., 3 4 conceptual & procedural ) more or less simultaneously.” Figure 2. Constructivist TLF (Bencze, 2005) 3

e.g., developing new conceptions about nature, including laws, theories and inventions (Bencze, 2005). e.g., learning about the nature of the subject area and its relationships with people and living and nonliving environments and skills for inquiry and design (Bencze, 2005).

Page 7 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Constructivism views the learning process as a spiral, where learners continually reflect on their experiences, gaining complexity, depth of understanding and increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information (Grennon Brooks, 2004). The constructivist TLF model in Figure 2 is better represented by spirals rather than circles – the gains in learning and broadening scope of the learner are reflected by the increasingly large spirals as learners assess and reassess their ideas on a specific topic (Figure 3 below). FUTURE expressing

judging

PRESENT

learning

expressing judging

learning

expressing

PAST Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of the constructivist learning process It is clear that this learning process is reflective of how the graduate capabilities may be effectively embedded within the curriculum (this paper, page 3). The affective learning domain of Bloom’s taxonomy is also helpful in understanding the learning process that occurs in this context. The affective learning domain addresses a learner's emotions towards learning experiences. A learner's attitudes, interest, attention, awareness, and values are demonstrated by affective behaviours. These emotional behaviours are organized in a hierarchical format also, starting from simplest and building to most complex (Table 4 below). (Martin, 2001). Table 4. Bloom’s Affective Learning Domain (Martin, 2001) Internalizing Values

behaviour which is controlled by a value system

Organization

organizing values into order of priority

Valuing

the value a person attaches to something

Responding to phenomena

taking an active part in learning; participating

Receiving phenomena

an awareness; willingness to listen

Learning Strategies Cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro et al, 1988) is a particular constructivist theory that focuses on the nature of learning in complex and ill-structured domains and the transfer of knowledge and skills beyond their initial learning situation (Dabbagh, 2007), making its learning strategy ideally suited to the acquisition of graduate capabilities. Emphasis is

Page 8 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University College

placed upon the presentation of information from multiple perspectives and the use of many case studies that present diverse examples (Dabbagh, 2007). A central claim of cognitive flexibility theory is that revisiting the same material, at different times, in rearranged contexts, for different purposes, and from different conceptual perspectives is essential for attaining the goals of advanced knowledge acquisition (mastery of complexity in understanding and preparation for transfer). (Spiro et al, 1992). Knowledge that will have to be used in a large number of ways has to be organized, taught, and mentally represented in many different ways (Ibid.). Such an approach also accommodates the fact that students have differences in learning styles that may put certain students at a disadvantage in a classroom that utilizes only one approach when communicating conceptual knowledge. Besides teaching and learning strategies, an important facet of university education is assessment. The constructivist assessment model includes student works, observations, and points of view, as well as tests, with the process being as important as the product. Many different specific instructional models may be used that are consistent with the overall learning strategy advocated by the constructivist cognitive flexibility theory. We will consider some of these in more detail in a later section (Strategies) of this paper. For now, let us consider the role of the lecturer or teacher first.

Learning Facilitator Contrary to criticisms by some (conservative/traditional) educators, constructivism does not dismiss the active role of the teacher or the value of expert knowledge (Grennon Brooks, 2004). Constructivism modifies that role, so that teachers help students to construct knowledge rather than to reproduce a series of facts (Ibid.). Hanley (1994) summarizes the role of the constructivist teacher: 1. Become one of many resources that the student may learn from, not the primary source of information. 2. Engage students in experiences that challenge previous conceptions of their existing knowledge. 3. Allow student responses to drive lessons and seek elaboration of students' initial responses. Allow student some thinking time after posing questions. 5. Encourage the spirit of questioning by asking thoughtful, open-ended questions. Encourage thoughtful discussion among students. 6. Use cognitive terminology such as "classify," "analyze", and "create" when framing tasks. 7. Encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative. Be willing to let go of classroom control. 8. Use raw data and primary sources, along with manipulative, interactive physical materials. 9. Don't separate knowing from the process of finding out. 10. Insist on clear expression from students. When students can communicate their understanding, then they have truly learned.

ÂŠ 2007 Taylorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University College, Malaysia

Page 9 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

This role is very different from the traditional behaviourist concept of teachers. In the behaviourist approach to teaching and learning, the teacher’s task consists of providing a set of stimuli and reinforcements that are likely to get students to emit an appropriate response. If the goal is to get students to replicate a certain behaviour, this method works well; but if understanding, synthesis, eventual application, and the ability to use information in new situations is our goal, this type of training rarely produces it. (Yager, 1991). Table 5 below compares some of the main differences between behaviourist and constructivist teacher roles. Table 5. Comparing traditional and constructivist teacher roles TRADITIONAL TEACHER Teachers disseminate information to students; students are recipients of knowledge Teacher's role is directive, rooted in authority Teacher’s main role is telling/talking Teacher strictly follows a fixed curriculum Students materials are primarily textbooks, lecture notes and teacher handouts

CONSTRUCTIVIST TEACHER Teachers have a dialogue with students, helping students construct their own knowledge Teacher's role is interactive, rooted in negotiation Teacher’s main role is mentoring/facilitating Pursuit of student questions and interests is valued Student materials include primary sources of material and manipulative materials

In fact there are also different “flavours” of constructivism and the one proposed for adoption by TUC in its TLF is what is known as “interactive constructivist” (Yore, 2001). In this form of constructivism knowledge is perceived as individualistic conceptions that have been verified by the epistemic traditions of a community of learners (NRC, 1996, p. 201). The interactive-constructivist perspective recognizes the limitations of people and procedures in attaining an accurate interpretation of the real world and stresses evaluation of all knowledge claims, requiring that explanations and interpretations are judged against the available data and canonical theories using evidence from Nature and scientific warrants to justify claims about reality (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Kuhn, 1993). The basic constructivist assumptions about the role of prior knowledge, the plausibility of alternative ideas, and the resiliency of these ideas are preserved in an interactiveconstructivist perspective; but professional wisdom, the accountability of public education, and the priorities of learning institutions mediate decisions about what to teach and how to teach in the classroom (Yore, 2001) The constructivist lecturer / teacher / learning facilitator’s role is therefore extended to include making sure that students gain an accurate interpretation of the real world.

Strategies Instructional Models In congruence with our discussion so far on learning strategies and the distinct advantage of adopting multiple instructional models for the communication of conceptual knowledge and the acquisition of transferable capabilities as explained by the cognitive flexibility theory, our TUC TLF includes a selection of constructivist instructional

Page 10 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

models that may be adopted for use within any particular individual subject syllabus5. The following descriptions are all either adopted or modified from Dabbagh (2007).

Problem-Based Learning Problem-Based Learning (PBL) engages the learner in a problem-solving activity. In this process, instruction begins with a problem to be solved rather than content to be mastered. Students are introduced to a real-world problem and are encouraged to dive into it, construct their own understanding of the situation, and eventually find a solution. Major goals of PBL are to help students develop collaborative learning skills, reasoning skills, and self-directed learning strategies. PBL is used as a stimulus for Authentic Learning – the problem is used to develop skills necessary to solve it and other problems – skills can include physical skills, recall of prior knowledge, and metacognitive skills related to the problem solving process.

Authentic Learning Authentic Learning refers to the idea that learners should be presented with problems that are realistic situations and found in everyday applications of knowledge (Smith and Ragan, 1999). Young (1993), recommends the following test of authenticity: learning situations should include some of the characteristics of real-life problem solving, including ill-structured complex goals. There should also be an opportunity to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. Finding and defining problems as well as solving them should be a generative process. Finally, students should engage in collaborative activities in which they draw upon their beliefs and values.

Action Learning6 Action Learning (AL) is a form of problem solving combined with intentional learning in order to bring about change. The essential elements of action learning are: 1. tackling real tasks in the real world and their real roles 2. learning with and through each other 3. taking individual responsibility and actually implementing solutions and plans At the heart of the process is a group of 4-6 individuals who meet at regular intervals for each member to explore a challenging open-ended problem or opportunity. Every member in turn works on his or her task with the others providing support and challenge. The aim is to help each member both to tackle the task and to learn from this. A basic premise of action learning is: “there is no learning without action and no action without learning”. Another premise is that learning has two elements: programmed knowledge (traditional instruction or knowledge in current use) and questioning insight. By using the knowledge and experience of a small group of people combined with skilled questioning, individuals are enabled to re-interpret old and familiar concepts and produce fresh ideas.

In fact each topic should be presented using at least two (or even more) different models, in keeping with the principles of the cognitive flexibility theory. 6 This section on Action Learning (AL) is as defined by the International Foundation for Action Learning (IFAL, 2007).

Page 11 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University College

Case-Based Learning Case-based learning uses case studies to present learners with a realistic situation and require them to respond as the person who must solve a problem (Smith and Ragan, 1999). In order to solve problems, learners select and manipulate several principles. According to Hudspeth and Knirk (1989) a complete case describes an entire situation and includes background information, the actions and reactions of persons involved, the solution, and the possible consequences of the actions taken. Case materials should have enough background information and detail so that they are readable and believable (p. 31). Case-based learning is appropriate for learning to problem solve when there is no one correct solution, particularly with more complex ill-structured problems (Smith & Ragan, 1999). Case studies can be written so that learners use more cognitive strategies as they proceed through increasing levels of instruction. Cases were traditionally used in professional education to teach decision making skills, such as the Harvard Business School case approach, and is also widespread in the field of medical education.

Collaborative Learning Collaborative learning, also called cooperative learning, is heavily emphasized in most constructivist approaches (Roblyer et al, 1996). Students working in groups to solve problems demonstrates the notion of distributive intelligence, which states that accomplishment is not a function of one person, but rather a group in which each contributes to the achievement of desired goals. Cooperative learning is an ideal way for students to learn the skills that extend beyond the classroom of sharing responsibility and working together toward common goals. According to Driscoll (2000), collaboration also provides students with a way to understand point of view outside their own. Advances in technology over the past several years have made computer-supported collaborative learning possible. Web-based technologies can make thinking more visible through virtual access to knowledge experts as well. (Perkins, 1991).

Discovery Learning Discovery learning has various definitions. At one end of the spectrum we find discovery learning in its simplest form. The tools and information needed to solve a problem or learn a concept are provided and the learner makes sense of them. Another definition is discovery learning as experimentation with some extrinsic intervention such as clues, coaching, and a framework to help learners get to a reasonable conclusion. At the other end of the continuum is the expository teaching model of discovery learning where the learner "discovers" what the teacher decides he is to discover using a process prescribed by the teacher.

Generative Learning Generative Learning is a learning process in which learners are given an overall problem and are asked to generate sub-problems, sub-goals, and strategies in order to achieve the larger task. Generative learning strategies can be divided into four major stages: 1. recalling information from long-term memory 2. integrating new knowledge with prior knowledge 3. relating prior knowledge to new concepts and ideas in a meaningful way 4. connecting new materials to information or ideas already in the learner's mind. ÂŠ 2007 Taylorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University College, Malaysia

Page 12 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Using this strategy, a learner relates new ideas to prior knowledge in order to provide meaning to the new material.

Goal-Based Scenarios Goal Based Scenarios (GBS) offer learners the opportunity to role-play from a certain point of view. Their goal is for the learner to accomplish a mission or task associated with their role in the scenario. In order to achieve this goal, the learner needs to acquire particular skills and knowledge. This is where and when learning takes place. A GBS serves both to motivate learners and to give them the opportunity to learn by doing. A designer of a GBS looks at it from the top-down: what drives the design of a GBS is the set of target skills the designer wishes the student to gain in the GBS. A student, on the other hand, tends to look at a GBS from the bottom-up. What drives a student is the context and structure of the activities the GBS offers.

Microworlds/Simulations In microworlds, students test 'What do you think will happen if…?' questions in constrained problem spaces that resemble existing problems in the real world. Learners generate hypotheses as they use their knowledge and skill to guess what will happen, try out those guesses, and reformulate them based on the results of their actions within the microworld. Microworlds provide the learner with the observation and manipulation tools necessary to explore and test. The key idea behind microworlds is creating an environment in which students explore the ideas being learned. Simulations are similar to microworlds in that they are experiential and model reality. Simulations range from models that mirror the simplified essence of reality to elaborate synthetic environments with immersion interfaces that place students inside alternate virtual worlds. Microworlds differ from simulations in that microworlds are structured to match the user's cognitive level so that it is appropriate to the users needs and level of experience.

Reciprocal Teaching Reciprocal teaching refers to an instructional activity that takes place in the form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text. The dialogue is structured by the use of four strategies: summarizing, question generating, clarifying, and predicting. The teacher and students take turns assuming the role of teacher in leading this dialogue. The purpose of reciprocal teaching is to facilitate a group effort between teacher and students as well as among students in the task of bringing meaning to the text.

Strategies for Implementing a Constructivist Lesson7 1. Starting the lesson - Observe surroundings for points to question - Ask questions - Consider possible responses to questions 7

This section is from Yager (1991).

Page 13 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Note unexpected phenomena Identify situations where student perceptions vary 2. Continuing the lesson - Engage in focused play - Brainstorm possible alternatives - Look for information - Experiment with materials - Observe a specific phenomena - Design a model - Collect and organize data - Employ problem-solving strategies - Select appropriate resources - Students discuss solutions with others - Students design and conduct experiments - Students evaluate and debate choices - Students identify risks and consequences - Define parameters of an investigation 3. Proposing explanations and solutions - Communicate information and ideas - Construct and explain a model - Construct a new explanation - Review and critique solutions - Utilize peer evaluation - Assemble appropriate closure - Integrate a solution with existing knowledge and experiences 4. Taking action - Make decisions - Apply knowledge and skills - Transfer knowledge and skills - Share information and ideas - Ask new questions - Develop products and promote ideas - Use models and ideas to elicit discussions and acceptance by others -

Assessment Strategies The traditional model for student assessments and evaluations, which includes timed tests and examinations, does not assess the full range of essential learning outcomes that we have defined for our students in the form of our TGC8. In order to verify that students have indeed gained the knowledge, abilities and skills listed, assessments have to also be able to directly demonstrate that they can indeed apply this acquired knowledge, capabilities and skills in authentic, meaningful contexts.

Appendix 1

Page 14 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Mueller (2006a) states, “Authentic assessment, in contrast to more traditional assessment, encourages the integration of teaching, learning and assessing. In the traditional assessment model, teaching and learning are often separated from assessment, i.e., a test is administered after knowledge or skills have (hopefully) been acquired. In the authentic assessment model, the same authentic task used to measure the students' ability to apply the knowledge or skills is used as a vehicle for student learning. For example, when presented with a real-world problem to solve, students are learning in the process of developing a solution, teachers are facilitating the process, and the students' solutions to the problem becomes an assessment of how well the students can meaningfully apply the concepts.”

Assessment Formats Wiggins (1998) recommends that multiple and varied assessments be used so that a sufficient number of samples are obtained, and a sufficient variety of measures are used. Badders (2000) identifies the range of assessment formats that are useful in Table 6 below: “Assessment can be divided into three stages: baseline assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment. Baseline assessment establishes the starting point of the student's understanding. Formative assessment provides information to help guide the instruction throughout the unit, and summative assessment informs both the student and the teacher about the level of conceptual understanding and performance capabilities that the student has achieved.”

Format Baseline Assessments Written Tests Embedded Assessments Oral Reports Interviews Performance Tasks Checklists Investigative Projects Extended or Unit Projects Portfolios

Table 6. Assessment Formats (Badders, 2000) Nature/Purpose Oral and written responses based on individual experience / Assess prior knowledge Multiple choice, short answer, essay, constructed response, written reports / Assess students acquisition of knowledge and concepts Assess an aspect of student learning in the context of the learning experience Require communication by the student that demonstrates conceptual understanding Assess individual and group performance before, during, and after a learning experience Require students to create or take an action related to a problem, issue, or conceptual concept Monitor and record anecdotal information Require students to explore a problem or concern stated either by the teacher or the students Require the application of knowledge and skills in an openended setting Assist students in the process of developing and reflecting on a purposeful collection of student-generated data

Stage Baseline Formative

Formative Formative Formative Formative and Summative Formative and Summative Summative Summative Formative and Summative

Page 15 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Assessment Standards Standards need to be specified in terms of both the knowledge dimension as well as the cognitive processes dimension. Knowledge standards are typically determined by test9 scores and assigned marks and grades. Process standards may also be assigned marks and grades, typically using rubrics10, which is a scoring scale used to assess student performance along a task-specific set of criteria. Teaching staff need to be trained in methods of assessment, including how to set test questions to accurately assess students conceptual knowledge as well as how to design rubrics for authentic assessment purposes. To ensure TUC-wide consistency of standards, general models and procedures for all modes of assessment need to be drawn up that can be adapted by individual lecturers for classroom use.

Student Portfolios Students’ acquisition of generic skills is mapped through the use of a cumulative student portfolio. These student portfolios are endorsed or verified by TUC against the set of expectations for each subject, program and co-curricular (optional) activity. The format of the student portfolios has been specified in the TUC Graduate Capabilities paper.

Implementation Plans The implementation of the TUC TLF that embeds the TGC concepts is projected occur in two phases and follow the progression outlined below11. A. Curriculum design 1. Identify what learners need to learn in terms of Knowledge Domain and TGC12 2. Map learning goals across entire duration of study 3. Identify subjects to be included through the mapping of these learning goals 4. Define individual subject objectives and learning outcomes 5. Chart subjects taken over duration of study 6. Identify specific topics to be included and the instructional models to communicate them, including learning goals achieved through these13 as well as modes of assessment to be utilized

There are two general categories of test items: (1) objective items which require students to select the correct response from several alternatives or to supply a word or short phrase to answer a question or complete a statement; and (2) subjective or essay items which permit the student to organize and present an original answer. Objective items include multiple-choice, true-false, matching and completion, while subjective items include short-answer essay, extended-response essay, problem solving and performance test items. (Duvall, 2007). 10 Authentic assessments typically are criterion-referenced measures. To measure student performance against a pre-determined set of criteria, a rubric, or scoring scale, is typically created which contains the essential criteria for the task and appropriate levels of performance for each criterion. (Mueller, 2006b). 11 Phases A and B may start concurrently. Phase A is expected to be spearheaded by Program Heads while Phase B should be managed by the TUC Teaching and Learning Centre. However, teaching staff should be involved in Step A.6. of the curriculum design. 12 The TGC goals have already been determined, but domain-specific knowledge objectives must be identified according to the different knowledge domains or degree programs.

Page 16 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

B. Align teaching staff to new TUC TLF 1. Introduce TLF to TUC teaching staff using constructivist learning approach 2. Explain role of Student Portfolios and TGC evaluation through these 3. Provide necessary training in constructivist classroom and student management, including methods of assessment, test and rubric design

Challenges Implementing a student-centred constructivist teaching and learning framework will certainly face challenges due to the general lack of familiarity among students and staff alike with the proposed approaches. Yet such challenges can be effectively addressed if properly identified and change management strategies put in place. Two major challenges that must be prepared for are: 1. Aligning teaching staff with the new framework, especially those very senior staff who may be set in their ways and who may resist change. 2. Reorienting student mindsets – new students will almost certainly be entering TUC having spent 12-13 years in traditional behaviourist educational environments that are very far removed from the constructivist models we are adopting at TUC. As such, it is unlikely that the majority will be naturally able to adapt to the new learning paradigm and a specifically designed orientation period will be required for this aim. It is strongly suggested that both staff and students be prepared for the new teaching and learning framework using the constructivist approaches outlined in this paper.

References AACU (Association of American Colleges and Universities). 2002. Greater Expectations. A New Vision for Learning as a Nation goes to College. National Panel Report. Washington DC: AACU. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. 1997, November. Learner-centred psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. (Rev. Ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Badders, W. 2000. Methods of Assessment. Houghton Mifflin Company. Available at: http://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles/badders.html Bencze, J.L. 2005. Procedural Education. Retrieved March 6th, 2007 from JL Bencze’s Website, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Available at http://leo.oise.utoronto.ca/~lbencze/ProceduralEd.html Bloom, B, Mesia, B., and Krathwohl, D. 1964. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: David McKay.

This is a spiral constructivist process. In fact, each step of our implementation plan should be revisited with the constructivist model in mind, in order to obtain the best possible results for implementation.

Page 17 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Cruz, E. 2003. “Bloom's revised taxonomy”. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Educational Technology. Available on-line, retrieved March 6th, 2007, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/bloomrev/start.htm CTG (Cognition and Technology Group). 1990. “Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition”. Educational Researcher. 19(8), 2-10. Dabbagh, N. 2007. The Instructional Design Knowledge Base. Retrieved March 5th, 2007 from Nada Dabbagh's Homepage, George Mason University, Instructional Technology Program. Available on-line at: http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/ Resources/ IDKB/models_theories.htm Driscoll, M. 2000. Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Duvall, K. 2007. Improving Your Test Questions. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available on-line, retrieved March 13th 2007 from http://www.cte.uiuc.edu/dme/exams/ITQ.html Grennon Brooks, J. 2004. Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Thirteen Ed Online, Educational Broadcasting Corporation. Available on-line at: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html Hanley, S. 1994. On constructivism. College Park, MD: Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Available on-line, retrieved March 7th 2007 from http:// www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-Projects/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism.txt Hart, B., Bowden, J. and Watters, J. 1999. “Graduate Capabilities: a Framework for Assessing Course Quality”. Higher Education in Europe, XXIV: 301-308. Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. 1997. “The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning”. Review of Educational Research. 67: 88-140. Hudspeth, D., & Knirk, F.G. 1991. “Case study materials: Strategies for design and use”. Performance Improvement Quarterl. 2(4): 2. IFAL (International Foundation for Action Learning). 2007. Action Learning – Some Defining Descriptions. Retrieved March 7 2007, from IFAL website, available at http://www.ifal.org.uk/descriptions.html Jonassen, D.H., Cernusca, D., Ionas, I.G. 2006. “Constructivism and instructional design: The emergence of the learning sciences and design research”. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Kuhn, D. 1993. “Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking”. Science Education. 77: 319-337. Martin, J. 2001. “Bloom's learning domains”. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Educational Technology. Available on-line, retrieved March 6th 2007, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/bloomsLD/start.htm McCombs, B.L. 2001. “What Do We Know About Learners and Learning? The Learner-Centered Framework: Bringing the Educational System into Balance.” Educational Horizons. Spring 2001: 182-193.

Page 18 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

Mueller, J. 2006a. “Why Use Authentic Assessment?” Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Napierville, IL: North Central College. Retrieved March 13th 2007, from http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whydoit.htm Mueller, J. 2006b. “Rubrics.” Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Napierville, IL: North Central College. Available on-line, retrieved March 13th 2007, from http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/rubrics.htm NRC (National Research Council). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Perkins, D. 1991. “Technology meet constructivism: Do they make a marriage?” Educational Technology. 31(5): 18-23. Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J. and Havriluk, M.A. 1996. “Learning Theories and Integration Models.” In Roblyer, Edwards, and Havriluk, Integrating educational technology into teaching. Chapter 3. Prentice Hall. Savery, J.R. and Duffy, T.M. 1996. “Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework.” In B. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Smith, P. and Ragan, T. 1999. Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D. 1988. “Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.” In V. Patel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. 1992. “Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.” In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Pp. 57-76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates. VonGlasersfeld, E. 1989. “Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching.” Synthese. 80(1): 121-140. Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Yager, R. 1991. “The Constructivist Learning Model towards Real Reform in Science Education.” The Science Teacher. 58(6): 52-57. Young, M. (1993). “Instructional design for situated learning”. Educational Technology Research & Development. 41(1), 43-58. Yore, L.D. 2001. “What is Meant by Constructivist Science Teaching and Will the Science Education Community Stay the Course for Meaningful Reform?” Electronic Journal of Science Education. 5(4): Guest Editorial. Available at http:// http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/yore.html

Page 19 of 20

TUC Teaching and Learning Framework, by Minni K. Ang, PhD, for Taylor’s University College

APPENDIX 1 TAYLOR’S GRADUATE CAPABILITIES The teaching and learning approach at Taylor’s University College is focused on developing the Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities in its students, capabilities that encompass the knowledge, cognitive capabilities and soft skills of our graduates.

Page 20 of 20