The Importance of Teaching Techniques, Environment and United Arab Emirates University Assessment for Newly Admitted Undergraduate Students In the United Arab Emirates University
Abstract
Teaching undergraduate students requires innovative teaching methods to enhance students’ learning. A combined approach using various teaching strategies has been reported to be necessary for a positive shift in students’ learning. In the present study, three hypotheses relating to United Arab Emirates University UAEU undergraduate education is assessed for both male and female students.
To test these hypotheses, a teaching survey was conducted during the academic year of 2007. The survey targeted undergraduate students during their early years (first to third year students) within the United Arab Emirates University. A total of 33 students were surveyed, sixteen male students and seventeen female students. 58% of the female students strongly agreed with the necessity of using Blackboard in biology courses, while only 31.3% of males had the same opinion. Between 41% and 59% of females and between 50% and 81.3% of males strongly agreed to the usefulness of PowerPoint presentations in learning and understanding course content. Regarding the necessity of the textbook at the course, 41.2% and 25.0% of females and males strongly agreed that the course textbook was important in understanding biology topics. In short, teaching techniques do constitute an important part in the effectiveness of the learning process and this was supported by students and instructors alike. No single technique could be sufficient to deliver a comprehensive learning experience. The use of technology has to play a part in the delivery of the course, especially now that our youngsters are more and more attracted to use technological equipment in their daily lives.
References
[2] Carpenter, P., Bullock, A., and Potter, J. 2006. Textbooks in teaching and learning: the views of students and their teachers. Brooks eJournal Learn Teach 2:1–10.
[3] Davis, H., Hwang, L., and Shoaf, V. 2001. The use of individualized problems to improve students’ learning. Journal of Accounting Education 19(3):189–210.
[4] Felder, R. and Brent, R. 1994. Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service Report ED, 377038.
[5] Johnson, D., Johnson, R., and Smith, K. 1991. Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University Washington, DC.
[6] Kahraman, S., Çevik, C., and Kodan, H. 2011. Investigation of university students’ attitude toward the use of PowerPoint according to some variables. Procedia Computer Science, 3:1341–1347.
[7] Klymkowsky, M. 2007. Teaching without a textbook: strategies to focus learning on fundamental concepts and scientific process. CBE-Life Sciences Education 6(3):190–193.
[8] Ksiksi, T. 2006. Teaching introductory biology courses: What works and what does not work. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research 1(1):46–48.
[9] Matell, M. and Jacoby, J. 1971. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and Validity. Educational and psychological measurement 31:657 - 674.
[10] Norusis, M. et al. 2010. PASW Statistics 18 Guide to Data Analysis. Prentice Hall Press.
[11] Parent, B., Marbach-Ad, G., Swanson, K., and Smith, A. 2010. Incorporating a literature-based learning approach into a lab course to increase student understanding. Bioscene 36:34 – 40.
[12] Ruokamo, H. and Pohjolainen, S. 1998. Pedagogical principles for evaluation of hypermedia-based learning environments in mathematics. Journal of Universal Computer Science 4(3):292–307.
[13] Sambell, K., Brown, S., and McDowell, L. 1997. But is it fair? An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation 23(4):349–371.
[14] Sanders, D. and Morrison-Shetlar, A. 2001. Student attitudes toward web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 33(3):251–262.
[15] Slish, D. 2005. Assessment of the use of the Jigsaw method and active learning in non-majors. Introductory biology. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching 31(4):4 – 10.
[16] Springer, L., Stanne, M., and Donovan, S. 1999. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1):21–51.
[17] Struyven, K., Dochy, F., and Janssens, S. 2003. Students’ perceptions about new modes of assessment in higher education: a review. Optimizing New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards, Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 171–223.
[18] Sundberg, M. 2002. Assessing student learning. Cell Biology Education 1(1):11–15.
[19] Tanner, K., Chatman, L., and Allen, D. 2003. Approaches to cell biology teaching: cooperative learning in the science classroom beyond students working in groups. Cell Biology Education 2(1):1–5.
[20] Thakur, A. and Mukhopadhyay, S. 1994. The biophysics, molecular biology and genetics department of calcutta university some experience and experiments with teaching. Biochemical Education 22(1):27 – 29.
[21] Veselinovska, S. S., Gudeva, L. K., and Djokic, M. 2011. Applying appropriates methods for teaching cell biology. 3rd World Conference on Educational Sciences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 15(0):2837 – 2842.
[22] Veselinovska, S., Zivanovik, J., Petrovska, S., and Gokik, M. 2010. Interactive learning in programmed teaching of the subject based of nature science at pedagogical faculties in the Republic of Macedonia (ICT tools in biology education). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2(2):2253 – 2259.
[23] Walvoord, B. and Anderson, V. 2009. Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment in College. Publisher Jossey - Bass, San Francisco.
[24] Wijeyewickrema, A., Schmoecker, J., and Kusakabe, O. 2010. Strategies to incorporate English into civil and environmental engineering undergraduate education. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. H: Engineering Education and Practice 2:21–27.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.