Strategic learning in philosophy through managing unorganized information using CTU552-EAC
List of Authors
  • Nurul Badriyah Ali , Syazwani Abd Rahim

Keyword
  • Central Platform, Online Learning, Online Games, Philosophy, CTU552-EAC

Abstract
  • The development of a modern educational system due to globalisation poses significant challenges to today’s generation. The spread of technology introduces digital information storage as opposed to the early environment of face-to-face education. In addition, the COVID-19 epidemic, which struck at the end of 2019, hampered the country’s education system but allowed the dissemination and reception of knowledge to be carried out virtually. Without proper planning, presenting information is difficult because of the constraints of not learning face-to-face. The purpose of the study was to (i) investigate the relationship between content and learning (LC), focusing on the management of unorganised information to websites CTU552-EAC (WC), course information (CI), slides and videos (SV), and online games (OG) and (ii) examine students’ perceptions of managing unorganised information on the CTU552-EAC website for philosophy courses. This quantitative study was conducted using questionnaire-based surveys on Google Forms, mainly to investigate students’ perceptions of asynchronous learning. There were 27 items with five dimensions (i) course information (CI), (ii) slides and videos (SV), (iii) online games (OG), (iv) CTU552-EAC (WC), and (v) learners to content (LC) in the questionnaire distributed to CTU552 students at the Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Johor Kampus Segamat. The 287 returned responses were computed in Spearman correlations. The study found a positive correlation between each variable, indicating that students react positively to course information, slides and videos, online games and the CTU552-EAC website provided by their lecturers on the central platform CTU552.

Reference
  • 1. Abou-Khalil, V.; Helou, S.; Khalifé, E.; Chen, M.A.; Majumdar, R.; Ogata, H. (2021), Emergency Online Learning in Low-Resource Settings: Effective Student Engagement Strategies. Educ. Sci., 11, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010024. 2. Albrecht, T.L. & Adelman, M.B. (1987). Communicating social support. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 3. Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors influencing student satisfaction with online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61–67. 4. Boocock, S. S. (1970). Using simulation games in college courses. Simulation & Games, 1(1), 67–79. https:// doi. org/ 10.1177/ 10468 78170 00100 106 5. Brannan, D. and Bleistein, T. (2012). Novice ESOL teachers’ perceptions of social support networks. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 519–541. 6. Bublitz, W. (1988). Supportive fellow-speakers and cooperative conversations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 7. Cohen, S. and McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress, and the buffering hypothesis: a theoretical analysis. In: Baum, A., Taylor, S.E. and Singer, J.E. (Eds.) Handbook of psychology and health (pp.253-267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 8. Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 9. 9. Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies: Serious games as educational tools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 207–219. https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1365- 2729. 2012. 00489.x 10. Górska, D. (2016). E-learning in Higher Education. The Person and the Challenges. Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II, 6(2), 35. 11. Gottlieb, B. (1988). Support interventions: a typology and agenda for research. In: Duck, S. (Ed.) Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 519-541). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 12. Hallifax, S., Serna, A., Marty, J. C., Lavoue, G., Lavoue, E. (2019a). Factors to consider for tailored gamification. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 559–572). Barcelona, Spain: Association for Computing Machinery. 13. Hobson, A.J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Homer, M.S., Ashby, P., Mitchell, N., McIntyre, J., Cooper, D., Roper, T., Chambers, G.N., and Tomlinson, P.D. (2009). Becoming a teacher: teachers’ experiences of initial teacher training, induction and early professional development. Final Report. Nottingham: DCSF. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/11168/1/DCSF-RR115.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2013]. 14. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Synchronous and asynchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 51–55. 15. Ibrahim, R., Yusoff, R. C. M., Zainuddin, N. M. M., Sjarif, N. N. A., & Razak, Y. Y. (2019). Educational Games Quality Framework for Learning Islamic History in Primary School. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 313-317. https:// doi: 10.18178/ijlt.5.4.313-317 16. Jaiprakash, H. (2022). Flipped Classroom for Pharmacology Teaching in a Malaysian Medical School using Online Tools during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Knowledge Gained and Student Perception. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (iJOE), 18(8). 154–161. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v18i08.31783 17. Lilian A. (2021). The use of metacognitive strategies for undisrupted online learning: Preparing university students in the age of pandemic. Education and Information Technologies 26:6881–6899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10518-y. 18. Martin, F. & Bolliger, D.U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning 22(1), 205- 222. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092. 19. Moizer, J., Lean, J., Dell’Aquila, E., Walsh, P., Keary, A., O’Byrne, D., Di Ferdinando, A., Miglino, O., Friedrich, R., Asperges, R., & Sica, L. S. (2019). An approach to evaluating the user experience of serious games. Computers & Education, 136, 141–151. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.006 20. Ngeze, L (2016). Learning Management Systems In Higher Learning Institutions in Tanzania: Analysis of Students' Attitudes and Challenges Towards the Use of UDOM LMS in Teaching and Learning at the University of Dodoma. International Journal of Computer Applications. 136 (11). p. 9-12. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2016908560. 21. Pheng, K. T., Hashim, H., and Sulaiman, N., A. (2021). The Use of technology in teaching of writing among Malaysian ESL Secondary School Teachers. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), Special Issue on CALL (7), 314-330. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/call7.22 22. Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s41239- 017- 0063-0 23. Schuurman, P. (2017). Models of war 1770–1830: The birth of wargames and the trade-off between realism and simplicity. History of European Ideas, 43(5),442–455. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01916 599. 2017. 13669 28 24. Sharp, L. A., & Sharp, J. H. (2016). Enhancing student success in online learning experiences through the use of self-regulation strategies. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 27(2), 57-75. 25. Sofiadin, A., & Azuddin, M. (2021). An initial sustainable e-learning and gamification framework for higher education. In International conferences on mobile learning 2021 and educational technologies. 26. Tanaporn H., et. al. (2022). Assessing the Impact of Online-Learning Effectiveness and Benefits in Knowledge Management, the Antecedent of Online-Learning Strategies and Motivations: An Empirical Study. Thailand: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability. 27. Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction. Retrieved from: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/ [Accessed 20 February 2015].