Page 1 of 10
Training of Trainers’ Course Development through Collaborative Action
Research at the Malaysian Maritime Academy
Kalyan Chatterjea, Capt. Mazlan Hamid B Hamzah, Lau Seng Chuan, Chua Kim Muar, Capt. Cheng Kim Choon, Lt. Cdr.(Retd.) Iman Fiqrie B Mohammed, Capt. Lee Ghim Teck
Malaysian Maritime Academy, Batu 30, Tanjung Dahan
78200, Kuala Sungai Baru, Melaka, Malaysia http://www.alam.edu.my
Abstract Embarking on collaborative action research, a Training of Trainers’ Course is being developed at the Malaysian Maritime Academy. Although the framework for the course is based on the IMO Model Course 6.09 (Training Course for Instructors – 2001), some changes are being made to update the content. Changes would reflect the present‐day teaching and learning practices in the MET institutes, which have undergone substantial overhaul during the last decade. The paper describes the process of this collaborative semester‐long work undertaken by a group of academic staff at the academy. The work is based on the cyclic Kemmis model of action research and constitutes weekly classroom activities, where some of the participants also take turn to act as facilitators. The course framework is thus reviewed through a community‐based reflective practice in a process of democratic enquiry. The objective of the project is to develop the course specification and the methodology of the course delivery. There are suggestions for inclusion of theories of learning, ICT in teacher education and replacement of instructionist approaches with opprtunities for constructionist practices in teaching and learning. The emerging proposed skeletal framework will be included in the paper.
1. Introduction
Training Course for Instructors is an IMO Model Course (6.09) and when in mid‐2009 we considered developing a formal course for training of new trainers at the Malaysian Maritime Academy, this Model Course was invariably referred to for setting the course framework. IMO Model Course 6.09 sets out a ten‐day course involving sixty hours for the lectures and activities to train the trainers for Maritime Education and Training (MET) Institutes. It was found that we could not incorporate the ten‐day course model as we normally have two or three new trainers joining the Academy at any one time. We needed more participants to make the course viable. As teaching and learning skills can be sharpened at any time during the tenure of a teacher’s professional career, we requested some of our experienced teachers to join the course for honing their pedagogic proficiency while helping to develop this course at the same time. After discussion, it was agreed that we will run this course for a semester using a weekly two‐hour slot. For reasons of practicality, a weekly‐course is considered more manageable and the time in‐between could then be used for classroom practices. The participants, of whom 80% were experienced trainers, would take turn to be the facilitator for the week and share his/her experience. The course structure would follow the framework suggested by the IMO Model Course 6.09 and participant would then critically evaluate and reflect on the appropriateness of the content, presentation style and also the methods for demonstrating competence. Thus, the course was to run as a collaborative activity among colleagues searching for ways to improve the course content as well as the delivery and assessment methods and associated procedures.
Page 2 of 10
The way the course was run could be referred to as action research. Lewin (1948) is generally accepted to have coined the term ‘action research’ to describe work that did not separate the investigation from the action needed to solve the problem (McFarland & Stansell, 1993, p. 14). Instead of theoretical approaches, action research permits practitioners to deal with concerns that are important to them and where they can have influence to make changes (Eileen, 2000, p.6). The processes followed are (1) general plan, (2) intervention, (3) observation and finally (4) reflection and revision. Quoting Dadds (1998, p. 41)
“…practitioner research [refers] to forms of enquiry which people undertake in their own working contexts and, usually, on their professional work, in whatever sphere they practice. The main purpose of the enquiry is to shed light on aspects of that work with a view to bringing about some benevolent change”.
This is frequently referred to as ‘action research’. We followed the action research protocol after Kemmis, which is cited in Hopkins, 1985 and is explained in detail later. We have completed 12 weeks of these reflective sessions and the paper shares the on‐going findings of this novel way of collaborative course development, where each session is reviewed through a community‐based reflective practice in a process of democratic enquiry. In the next sections, we first describe the methodology of our process using the Kemmis protocol and follow up with some details of the 12 sessions. An emerging draft of the proposed course outline replacing the existing table (IMO Course Model 6.09, p.8) is also included.
2. Action Research Protocol after Kemmis (cited in Hopkins, 1985)
Figure 1. Depicts the nature of Action Research
(after Kemmis) A – Before Class B,C,D – In Class
Figure 1 displays the nature of action research along with the major steps of planning, action, observation and reflection before revising the plan. Most of the planning (A) was done before the classroom sessions, while the presentation (action), observation and reflection were done collaboratively during each classroom session. According to Panitz (1996), as reported by Fandiño (2007), collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle where individuals are responsible for their actions, including learning about and respecting the abilities and contributions of their peers. It suggests a way of dealing with people, which respects and highlights individual group members’ abilities and contributions. There is a sharing of authority and acceptance of responsibility among group members for the group actions. Collaboration ties into the social movement, asserting that group
Page 3 of 10
members should base both knowledge and authority of knowledge upon consensus building through cooperation. Here, we report some of the details of the weekly sessions, which were lively and enjoyable and over the weeks we increased the number of active participants, who came forward to take part in these academic exchanges.
3. Weekly Reflective Sessions
A table from the IMO Model Course is extracted at the right for ready reference. Our sessions follow the general structure as indicated by this table. However, there was debate at the very start. Some of the participants felt that there was a need for strating the programme with an introduction to learning theories, while others wanted to emphasize on competencies. The second group argued that maritime training is about outcome‐based approaches as specified under STCW documentation and one may not need theories to implement this IMO Model Course. However, it was finally agreed to continue with a session on learning theories. Quoting Szuberla (1997) could perhaps shed some light to this dilemma, “The summer preceding my preservice teacher training, a recently retired school superintendent offered me a bit of fatherly advice he was, after all, my father, ‘I'll tell you the same thing I told all of my administrative interns. Study the works of the finest academic theoreticians and serve your apprenticeship under the best practitioners in the field you can find.’ He was communicating to me that theory and practice each hold a position of central importance in the educative process. They are not separate pillars upon which education is poised; rather, they are intertwined roots, each necessary for growth. As I embarked on my teaching career in the Teachers For Alaska program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks ‐ a combined regimen of practical, lecture, discussion and professional reading ‐ I found his advice firmly supported in the literature (e.g. Knowles et al., 1994, pp. 5‐8 and references therein).”
Existing Table (IMO Model Course 6.09. p.8.)Subject Area Hours
Lecture Activity1. Understand and describe how
STCW 95 requires competence‐based training
1.1 Describe the competence‐based training requirements of STCW 95
2. Plan an effective teaching environment
2.1 Plan the learning process 2.2 Demonstrate a knowledge of the
factors which affect student learning
3. Use a range of teaching methods effectively
3.1 Demonstrate a range of teaching methods appropriate to the needs of the trainee seafarers
4. Use appropriate training aids 4.1 Demostrate a range of teaching
aids 4.2 Select appropriate training aids
5. Produce a relevant lesson plan 5.1 Identify outcomes for a lesson 5.2 Recognise factors to consider
when planning a lesson 6. Evaluate teaching & learning
6.1 Analyse the uses of evaluation 6.2 Identify measurements of
performance 6.3 Select appropriate evaluation
methods 6.4 Identify the need for quality
management 7. Design a course of study
7.1 Identify the factors to be considered when designing a learning programme
7.2 Deliver a new course of study
2 5 6 3 3 2 3
‐ 4 10 9 6 4 3
Total Hours
24 36
The point emphasized at the classroom session was the fact that a look at adult education would not be complete without a view of the theories shaping the way we learn and the way we teach. While our trainers may have heard that various learning theories exist, few are aware of the differences between the theories and how they affect the way we learn
Page 4 of 10
and also teach. An overview into the different theories highlights the characteristic differences, and implications of each approach, which could be helpful for a new teacher in setting out his strategies for teaching as discussed by Dubin, S. S. and M. Okun (1973). With this knowledge, we can identify which theory is appropriate for our needs and which we should look to when evaluating instructional programs.
We debated the theories and their implications for teaching and learning for maritime students. We concurred that that the existing practice of performance measurement of a trainer in class is predominantly based on learning theory of behaviourism. This measurement indirectly shapes the new trainer to have a biased view of learning based on behaviourism and mostly teacher‐centred activities. It was argued that learning theories such as cognitivism and constructivism should be added to the new trainers’ skill‐sets, which will open their mind and enable them to select the best approach when facilitating the sessions. It was also discussed that the feedbacks from students are very important regarding the various learning theories. However, it became clear that without preparing the class for student‐centred activities, constructivist approaches may not bear fruit as the students maybe more used to top‐down instructionist ways and could be wary of other approaches in a time‐critical curriculum. On scrutiny, we also found that these aspects are covered in 6.09 without the specific mention of the learning theories (IMO Model Course 6.09, p.23 – our observations are in italics):
When teaching a competence‐based course to adult trainees an instructor should try to:
• Help them to decide how they learn best {refers to individual learning style}
• Use methods which make learning as active, i.e. practical as possible { constructivism is often associated
with pedagogic approaches that promote active learning, or learning by doing}
• Encourage them to participate as much as possible {when in learning there is assistance sought through social constructivism (Vygotsky as referenced in Wilhelm et al., 2001), e.g. through capable peers and facilitator, learning potential is realised – learning in the Zone of Proximal Development}
• Help them to take responsibility for their own learning {refers again to constructivist practices in learning}
• Encourage them to think about what they have learned { refers to cognitivism, which focuses on the inner
mental activities – opening the “black box” of the human mind is valuable and necessary for understanding how people learn. Mental processes such as thinking, memory, knowing, and problem‐solving need to be explored.}
The session on competency‐based education and introduction to STCW to new trainers did not pose much problem. In the Model Course 6.09, the section Describe the competence‐based training requirements of STCW 95 (p.12) provides the details and this is further explained under Session2: Training requirements under STCW 95 and Notes for Session 2. The extract of the table (Model Course 6.09, p.12) is shown below left with the observations of the group given at the right.
Knowledge, understanding and proficiency Observations 1.1 Describe the competence‐based training requirements
of STCW 95 .1 explain the outcome based approach to maritime
training .2 explain how skills required to operate a ship have
been identified as "competences" grouped together as "functions"
Generally, the group agreed with the suggested detailed syllabus. However, there were some cautionary remarks expressed by some members of the group with respect to actual implementation of the outcome‐based approach to training, which was not elaborated under Notes for the Session 2 (p. 17).
.3
.4
.5
.6
The sessip.12) covdevelopidiscussio
e
f.
2. Faa.
b
c.de
The groueffectivecontent w
explain how "ccompetence tathe competenand skills
explain how thCode specify cand proficienccompetence, acompetence
explain the roltraining
state that thosassessment m
ions on the sver a large seng the discuon points as
. Implemof learn
Revise t
actors affect. Diversit
. Teachin
. Aptitud. Memor. Nature
up observed teaching anwere introdu
competences" areables in the STCWces are divided int
he competence tacriteria for knowlecy, methods for deand criteria for eva
le of seagoing serv
se responsible for ust be appropriate
section Planegment of a ussion pointsindicated:
ent the courners the plan afte
ting studenty & Academi. Family bii. Establishng & Learnini. Individuii. Inductiv
thinkinge, abilities ization skillsof instructio
that the awnd learning euced at this
e specified by the W Code, and how to specific tasks
bles in the STCW dge, understandinemonstrating aluating
vice and on board
training and ely qualified
an effectivenew trainers. The follow
1. Tasks a. A
eb. Dc. S
mow
d. Dsos
rse plan, cre
er assessmen
t learning mic Culture background, hment of a “g Styles al differenceve & deductivg
s, study skillson
areness of cenvironmentstage, which
ng
The group fstrength whcommon tocompetencpractice anhands. Howmodel maythe competdiscrete tasconnectionthese connsynthesis oconcurred tskills are likchallenge s
e teaching enr’s curriculumwing sessions
in designingAnalyse studexpectationsDecide on coSelect contemethods andobjectives plwill be expecDevelop studsummative) objectives anspecified leveating a learn
nts and eval
race, politic“safe” enviro
es representve learners,
s
content was t. Hence, somh is seen in D
felt that outcomhen it is confineo the ‘technical’ cy‐based educatd reduce the gawever, in practicy be conceptualistence is broken sks. It is claimedn between tasksections are impof knowledge andthat in the yearskely to be replacseafarers’ cognit
nvironmentm and we des were unde
g effective codent needs, ts ourse goals ant, learning d resources acing emphcted to do. dent assessm‐ those direcnd demonstrel of compening environ
uations.
cal opinion, gonment
ted by persoexpanding s
necessary wme aspects oDesign a cou
me‐based approad to task‐orientedomain of learnion should combp between the me, there is a dansed in behavioudown into the p that behaviouras and according tortant for perfod skills are necess ahead, a lot of ced by other skilive competencie
(Model Coueliberated fortaken with
ourses their backgro
and course oactivities, terelevant to gasis on what
ment (formactly address rate the skilltence. nment and a
gender etc.
onality typesstudents’ wa
while planninof preliminaurse of study
Page 5 of 1
ach has its ed learning ning. In theory, bine theory withmind and the nger that the ral terms, when performance of al models ignoreto Hyland (1994rmance where ssary. The groupdrill & practice ls which will es.
rse 6.09, or a while in the chosen
ound, their
objectives eaching goals and t a trainee
tive & the learningls to a
community
s ays of
ng an ry course y under
10
h
e )
p
g
y
Page 6 of 10
section 7. This is also seen in the Model Course 6.09, e.g. Session 3, which has components from Section 2, 3 as well as 4 and again Session 6, which has components from Sections 2 as well as 3. So, a sequential approach is not followed based on the Framework Table shown in the Model Course (p.8) or the detailed teaching syllabus (pp. 12‐14).
Use a range of teaching methods effectively under Section 3 (see the extract below), posed considerable debate among group members. Our reflective observations are at the right of the table.
Knowledge, understanding and proficiency Observations 3 Use a range of teaching methods effectively
3.1 Demonstrate a range of teaching methods appropriate to trainee seafarers’ needs
.1 deliver teaching sessionsusing variety of teaching styles
.2 manage and lead group learning
.3 relate styles to size of groups
The Guidance notes for these sessions are not explicit in the Model Course 6.09. It is first covered under Session 4, when Informal talks were mentioned. Later under Session 6 there is mention of Verbal and non‐verbal communication. Under Session 9, there are Question and answer techniques. Finally, under Session 11 – The Lecture is mentioned; under Session 12 – The Lecture – Practical work is mentioned.
The group found this quite haphazard. We looked elsewhere for guidence. We found a good starting point in a paper by Ho Kam‐Fai (1973) entitled “Preferred Teaching Method: Lecture, Discussion on Tutorial?” It is worth worth quoting Ho Kam‐Fai on teaching methods, where he explains the rationale for the method selection:
The search for an effective teaching method is a perennial concern and goal for a responsible educator. Teaching is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. Therefore, the effectiveness of a teaching method has to be evaluated by the degree of its attainment of specified goals. However, this means‐end relationship is not a direct, linear one, but is intervened by a third variable, i.e. the learner and a set of elements associated with the learner’s learning.
We also referrred to Atsusi Hirumi (2002), who gave the following guiding table based on Honebein’s (1996) Constructivist Learning Environments and Gagné’s (1974, 1977) Nine Events of Instruction, which would be applicable in various methods. Honebein’s (1996) Constructivist Learning Environments Gagné’s (1974, 1977) Nine Events of Instruction
1. Provide experience with knowledge construction process
2. Present multiple perspectives 3. Embed learning in authentic context 4. Encourage ownership and voice in learning process 5. Embed learning in social experience 6. Encourage use of multiple modes of representation 7. Encourage reflection and self‐awareness of
knowledge construction process.
1. Gain attention 2. Inform learners of objective(s) 3. Stimulate recall of prior knowledge 4. Present stimulus materials 5. Provide learning guidance 6. Elicit performance 7. Provide feedback about performance 8. Assess performance 9. Enhance retention and transfer
Finally, we decided on the following six sessions for teaching methods:
• Overview of teaching methods in practice
• Making lectures more interesting
• Supporting tutorials and group work
• Strengths of case studies and role playing
• Use of multimedia (video + graphics) in teaching & learning
• Why do we need to know about the learning styles of our learners & how to use
learning style index?
We also included ten hours of practical activities per participant. It was suggested that the
participants practice the various methods discussed during these six sessions for their own
or
Page 7 of 10
teaching and make a report of their implementations in their classes and their reflections of
the usefulness of the method(s) used. Our next sessions will cover the Use of appropriate training aids. These could pose a problem as the Model Course 6.09 covers limited ICT usage, although Session 25 mentions The Internet as a teaching and learning resource, which bears well for the authors of the Model Course considering that it was probably conceptualized in 2000 and published in 2001. Perhaps we need to strike a balance here as extensive ICT usages could be quite daunting for new MET teachers, who have limited IT exposure at sea.
4. Conclusions
The paper described the collaborative effort of a team of MET academics in deliberating the content of a Training Course for Instructors. We understand now that the updating of the Model Course 6.09 will require a substatial effort given the complexities of maritime training, dynamics of our industry and different backgrounds or our new entrants. However, in a collaborative mode, we certainly feel the task to be less daunting and we would like to encourage the readers (Martech participants) to contribute and join the discussion in this collaborative development work. A very preliminary revised course framework is attached to trigger further discussions in the subject area. We will end with a thought provoking extract from Wapedia (2010) on Constructivism (learning theory).
Where a teacher gives a didactic lecture which covers the subject matter, a facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her own understanding of the content. This dramatic change of role implies that a facilitator needs to display a totally different set of skills than a teacher (Brownstein, 2001).
• A teacher tells, a facilitator asks; • A teacher lectures from the front, a facilitator supports from the back; • A teacher gives answers according to a set of curriculum, a facilitator provides guidelines and creates
the environment for the learner to arrive at his or her own conclusions; • A teacher mostly gives a monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the learners (Rhodes &
Bellamy, 1999).
Page 8 of 10
References Brownstein, B. (2001) Collaboration: The Foundation of Learning in the Future. Education, 122 (2), 240.
Dadds, M. 1998. Supporting practitioner research: A challenge. Educational Action Research, Vol. 6 (1) pp. 39‐52.
Dubin, S. S. and M. Okun (1973). Implications of learning theories for adult instruction. Adult Education, 24 (1). p. 8.
Fandiño, Y. J. (2007). Action research and collaboration: a new paradigm in social research and language education. GIST – The Colombian Journal of Bilingual Education, Vol. 1, 90‐97.
Ferrance, Eileen. (2000). Action Research in Themes in Education. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University. Brown University.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Student‐Centered, Technology‐Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning. Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education (2002) 10(4), 497‐537.
Ho Kam‐Fai (1973). Preferred Teaching Method: Lecture, Discussion on Tutorial? Studium: The Bulletin of the School of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Vol. 4 No. 1 (1973 May)
Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hyland, T. (1994). “Competence, Education and NVQs: Dissenting Perspectives”. London, Cassell.
Knowles, J.G., Cole, A.L., & Presswood, C.S. (1994). Through preservice teachers' eyes: Exploring field experiences through narrative and inquiry. New York: Macmillan. Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics. Gertrude W. Lewin (ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1948. Pp. 202‐203.
McFarland, K.P., & Stansell, J.C. (1993). Historical perspectives. In L. Patterson, C.M. Santa, C.G. Short, & K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rhodes, L. K. And Bellamy, G. T. (1999). Choices un Consequences in the Renewal of Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (1), 17.
Szuberla, C. A. L (1997). Learning Theory and the Preservice Teacher. Education; Spring97, Vol. 117 Issue 3, p381, 5p.
Wilhelm, J., Baker, T., and Dube, J. (2001). Strategic Reading: Guiding Students to Lifelong Literacy. Heinemann, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc., New Hampshire, USA. An edited version available at: http://www.myread.org/scaffolding.htm (retrieved on 15th March 2010)
or
Page 9 of 10
Annex ‐ I Suggested Part Course Framework
Extract from IMO Model Course 6.09 [pp. 12‐13] Preliminary Suggestions from Academic Group atMalaysian Maritime Academy
1 Understand implications for teaching practice of the key ideas from learning theories
Required performance: 1.1 Describe the learning theories and their
implications for teaching and learning .1 explain teaching and learning approaches in
behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism .2 list areas of maritime training where these
approaches would be suitable .3 explain how learning could be conceived as a
process of active construction .4 describe why students’ prior knowledge is an
important determinant of what they will learn .5 explain how organizing information into a
conceptual framework helps students remember and use knowledge
.6 explain how learning could be seen as a social phenomenon
.7 state that learning is context‐specific
.8 explain why students’ metacognitive skills (thinking about thinking) are important to their learning
1 Understand and describe how STCW 95 requires competence‐based training
Required performance: 1.1 Describe the competence‐based training
requirements of STCW 95 .1 explain the outcome based approach to maritime
training .2 explain how skills required to operate a ship have
been identified as "competences" grouped together as "functions"
.3 explain how "competences" are specified by the competence tables in the STCW Code, and how the competences are divided into specific tasks and skills
.4 explain how the competence tables in the STCW Code specify criteria for knowledge, understanding and proficiency, methods for demonstrating competence, and criteria for evaluating competence
.5 explain the role of seagoing service and on board training
.6 state that those responsible for training and assessment must be appropriately qualified
2 Understand and describe how STCW 95 requires competence‐based training
Required performance: 2.1 Describe the competence‐based training
requirements of STCW 95 .1 explain the outcome based approach to maritime
training and its limitations .2 explain how skills required to operate a ship have
been identified as "competences" grouped together as "functions"
.3 explain how "competences" are specified by the competence tables in the STCW Code, and how the competences are divided into specific tasks and skills
.4 explain how the competence tables in the STCW Code specify criteria for knowledge, understanding and proficiency, methods for demonstrating competence, and criteria for evaluating competence
.5 explain the role of seagoing service and on board training
.6 state that those responsible for training and assessment must be appropriately qualified
2 Plan an effective teaching environment Required performance: 2.1 Plan the learning process .1 list the requirements for the effective planning of a
course .2 identify the factors which affect teaching .3 list the qualities required by an instructor .4 organise the classroom environment to assist
learning
3 Plan an effective teaching environment Required performance: 3.1 Plan for an effective course implementation .1 analyse student needs, their background, their
expectations .2 list out course goals and course objectives .3 list out content, learning activities, teaching
methods and resources relevant to goals and objectives placing emphasis on what a trainee will be expected to do.
.4 develop student assessment (formative & summative) ‐ those directly address the learning
Page 10 of 10
Extract from IMO Model Course 6.09 [pp. 12‐13] Preliminary Suggestions from Academic Group atMalaysian Maritime Academy
Required performance: 2.2 Demonstrate a knowledge of the factors that
affect student learning .1 identity the factors which influence student
motivation .2 discuss individual learning needs within a group .3 demonstrate effective use of communication skills .4 adjust teaching practice for cultural differences
objectives and demonstrate the skills to a specified level of competence.
.5 implement the course plan, creating a learning environment and a community of learners
.6 revise the plan after assessments and evaluations. 3.2 Demonstrate a knowledge of the factors that
affect student learning .1 identity the factors which influence student
motivation (e.g. family background, race, political opinion, gender, establishment of a ‘safe’ environment)
.2 discuss individual learning needs within a group (e.g. teaching & learning styles, inductive & deductive learners, aptitudes, abilities)
.3 demonstrate effective use of communication skills
.4 adjust teaching practice for cultural differences
3 Use a range of teaching methods effectively Required performance: 3.1 Demonstrate a range of teaching methods
appropriate to trainee seafarers' needs .1 deliver teaching sessions using a variety of
teaching styles .2 manage and lead group learning .3 relate styles to size of group
4 Use a range of teaching methods effectively Required performance: 4.1 Demonstrate a range of teaching methods
appropriate to trainee seafarers' needs .1 deliver teaching sessions using a variety of
teaching styles (e.g. lectures with quizzes and discussions, case studies, role playing, videos and use of graphics and use of interactive learning material)
.2 manage and lead group learning (e.g. projects and research‐based group work)
.3 relate styles to size of group
Recommended
