Teamwork & Collaboration Skill and Communication Skill of Undergraduate Students at Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University: Using Big Five Learning
Wasana Keeratichamroen1*
1Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, 340 Suranarai Road, Nai Mueang Sub-district, Mueang Nakhon Ratchasima District, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, 30000, Thailand
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: +66 4 4009009 # 1102;
Fax: +66 4 44244739, E-mail address: wasano1975@hotmail.com
Brief auto biographical note
I am a lecturer in Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University. I teach graduate and undergraduate students on Instructional Management Course and Curriculum Development Course as well.
Abstract
The purposes of this research were to study (1) teamwork & collaboration skill of undergraduate students on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course Using Big Five Learning (2) communication skill of undergraduate students on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course Using Big Five Learning and (3) satisfaction of undergraduate students on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course Using Big Five Learning.
Participants in this study were 67 sophomore students, Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, who enrolled in this course in the second semester of 2014 academic year. The experimental group was 33 students majoring in Physics and General Science Program (P8) and the control group was 34 students majoring in Physics and General Science Program (P9). The control group received a traditional lecture, while the experimental group was treated with Big Five Learning. The research tools consisted of 8 lesson plans, teamwork & collaboration skill questionnaire, communication skill questionnaire, satisfaction questionnaire and journal writing. Data were analyzed using means, standard deviations and t-test.
The result showed that the post-scores of teamwork & collaboration skill and communication skill of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the traditional group at statistical significance .05 level.
Keywords : Big Five Learning, Teamwork & Collaboration Skill, Communication Skill
Introduction
The current study should focus on students to learn the skills in the 21st century. It is well recognized that the teaching and learning in the 21st century has an importance. Phanit (2012) stated that “the right education for the new century” is to learn in order to master skills; that is, to use the skills learned in real life. Education has to shift to learning by doing. Skill development is a lifelong process. Therefore, learning management in an attempt to improve Thailand’s education in this century must aim to move towards collaborative learning between teacher and students by focusing on “learning process rather than knowledge” and “answer-finding process rather than answers.” In order to achieve these goals, we proposed the Partnership for 21st Skills, which includes three important skills, as follows:
1. Learning and Innovation Skills: These skills focus on the development of abilities in critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, creative thinking, and innovation.
2. Life and Career Skills: These skills focus on the development of the following qualities: flexibility and adjustment, life goal planning, determination, society understanding, cultural difference recognition, production potential, checks and balances acceptance, leadership, and responsibility.
3. Information, Media, and Technology Skills: These skills focus on abilities to access various information and media appropriately, to manage, link, evaluate, and create information as well as to apply morals and laws in information technology.
QSCCS or as we called Big Five Learning means teaching to assist learners and potential of individuals. As in researching skills, the basic knowledge needed for this skill is teamwork and collaboration, effective communication, and cooperative life skill (Office of the High School. Office of the Basic Education Ministry of Education, 2012). Paradigm Learning QSCCS comprised of (1) Learning by asking questions (Learning to Question), (2) Learning to seek information (Learning to Search), (3) Learning to build knowledge (Learning to Construct), (4) Learning to communicate (Learning to Communicate), and (5) Learning to society (Learning to Serve). This 5 steps learning process, thus, fulfills the 21st century by encouraging the students with skills in everyday life. Such skills are parts of being effective citizen of the 21st century. This approach has already been acquired by many schools.
This study aimed to promote students’ teamwork & collaboration skill and communications skill of undergraduate students on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course Using Big Five Learning. The undergraduate students were given opportunities to learn by themselves as well as to discuss and share ideas in class. These activities help them to improve satisfaction on Learning Design and
Instructional Management Course.
Theoretical Framework
Big Five Learning
The teacher instinct, whether it is in the past or present, is to “teach.” Unlike in the new world, the 21st century world, teachers do not have to teach, they help their students think and demonstrate so that students can learn from engaging in activities. Teachers are to focus more on getting to know their students, rather than teach what is on the course syllabus. Then they have to determine what are to be given to students and what skills are to be achieved. After that, teachers design the method of learning that the students would have to work on projects and conduct activities mainly by themselves. Teachers transform from “lecturers” to “coaches” who coach students how to work on project for integrated-learning purpose. Students will learn the best not from teachers putting all the things written in the books in their brains (Phanit, 2012, p.138-139). These concepts lead to an idea that education systems, in all levels, need development and change in accordance to the 21st century world. A system, that encourages students to learn by themselves, needs to be implemented. Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University had a project with Nakhon Ratchasima Primary Educational Service Area Office 1-7 and Secondary Educational Service Area Office 31, called “Coaching and Mentoring” in 2016. This project, we called QSCCS from Office of the Basic Education Commission’s 5-step learning process to “Big Five Learning”. The QSCCS activity or Big Five Learning can be implemented to or used as a guideline for teaching. There are five steps which are: (1) Learning to Question; (2) learning to Search; (3) learning to Construct; (4) learning to Communicate; and (5) learning to Serve. This study used Big Five Learning as 8 steps learning process in Table 1 (Vicheanpant,2015).
Table 1: The 8-step of Big Five Learning
Office of the Basic Education Commission’s
5-step learning process (QSCCS)/Big Five Learning 8-step learning process of Big Five Learning
Q = Learning to Question
Before carry out a work project, the students are trained to find problems, ask questions, think, and brainstorm together about the topic of their mutual interests or topic in question. Step 1
Teacher preparation
Step 2
Community survey
Step 3
Brainstorming
S = Learning to search
In order to begin the work project, the students need to search for more information about the subject mat¬ters. The problem-based project learning allows them to learn, find answers, solve problems, and complete all processes together. Step 4
Data analysis and classification
Step 5
Learning design
C = Learning to construct
Integrated learning allows students to incorporate the new knowledge to other subjects and apply them in real life appropriately. Step 6
Doing
C = Learning to communicate
In Backward design learning, a product-based teach¬ing, when students finish the lesson or during a lesson, they are required to have work or product as a result of their study to exchange with others. Step 7
Data conclusion
S = Learning to serve
Upon completion of each lesson, students are able to present and improve their knowledge for the benefit of their own and others. Again, forms of presentation are dependent on the students. Step 8
Knowledge extension
Teaching strategy such as Big Five Learning has been shown to be beneficial in promoting students’ teamwork, collaboration and communication skills. Learning through the newly learning activity together with other strategies in this study would provide opportunities for students to speak, write, and present. The learning unit enhances undergraduate students in accountability, helping each other, and open-minded. The undergraduate students would also learn how to apply their knowledge to real life situations.
Research Questions
This research addresses the following two questions.
1. Can the Big Five Learning enhance undergraduate students’ teamwork, collaboration and communication skills on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course?
2. What are the undergraduate students’ satisfaction of Learning Design and Instructional Management Course Using Big Five Learning?
Methodology
1. Implementation of the Learning Unit
1.1 Study Design
This research was a case study conducted within an interpretative paradigm. A quantitative approach was used for generating numerical data. An eight- learning plans (4-hour period/learning plan) on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course was developed for the undergraduate students using Big Five Learning, which was divided into three phases: exploration of students’ knowledge,
implementation, and evaluation as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Teaching and learning sequence of the Big Five Learning for
undergraduate students
1.2 Participants
The participants were undergraduate students, Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, who enrolled in this course in the second semester of 2014 academic year. They were sophomore students with mixed ability from two classrooms. There were 67 sophomore students aged 19-20 years old. All undergraduate students signed the consent form for participating in this study. One group received a traditional lecture, while the other group was treated with Big Five Learning. There were no significant differences in age and the average grade in learning between the two groups. The experimental group was 33 sophomore students majoring in Physics and General Science Program (P8) and the control group was 34 sophomore students majoring in Physics and General Science Program (P9). Duration of the designed learning unit was 32 hours in both traditional and experimental groups. Both groups were taught by the same teacher with the same concept, but the experimental group was given the Big Five Learning unit instead of the conventional lecture. Students in the experimental group were divided into 8 subgroups of 4
students each.
2. Data Collection
For the experimental group, the data collected were pre and post questionnaire on pre-teamwork, collaboration and communication skills questionnaire, pre-satisfaction questionnaire, post-teamwork, collaboration and communication skills questionnaire, post-satisfaction questionnaire and journal writing. For the traditional group, in which the students received only traditional lecture, the data collected were pre and post questionnaire on pre-teamwork, collaboration and communication skills questionnaire, post-teamwork, collaboration and communication skills questionnaire pre-satisfaction questionnaire and post-satisfaction questionnaire.
2.1 Teamwork & collaboration skill questionnaire
Teamwork & collaboration skill questionnaire was used as pre-questionnaire and post- questionnaire to measure the students’ teamwork & collaboration skill. This instrument has 14 items that have both positive and negative statements. These items are classified into 3 scales: accountability, helping each other, and open-minded. The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of all 14 items of the
questionnaire was 0.86.
2.2 Communication skill questionnaire
Communication skills questionnaire was used as pre-questionnaire and post- questionnaire to measure the students’ communication skills. This instrument has 14 items that have both positive and negative statements. These items are classified into 3 scales: speaking, writing, and presentation. The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of
all 14 items of the questionnaire was 0.88.
2.3 Satisfaction questionnaire
Satisfaction questionnaire was used as pre-questionnaire and post-
questionnaire to measure the students’ satisfaction on Big Five Learning. This instrument has 20 items that have both positive and negative statements. These items are classified into 4 scales: subject matter content knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, educational media, and assessment. The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of all 20 items of the questionnaire was 0.89.
2.4 Journal writing
The journal writing aimed at investigating students’ feelings, and the student-teacher interaction in the classroom. The students were asked to write at the
end of the class.
3. Data Analysis
The quantitative data on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course, i.e., teamwork, collaboration and communication skills questionnaire and satisfaction questionnaire were analyzed by using statistics software package, SPSS version 18. In terms of qualitative data such as journal writing was analyzed by using a thematic approach. The journal writing was coded to identify themes and then the findings interpreted. All data helped to find and develop meanings, patterns or ideas that described the teaching and learning situation, students’ views of teaching and
learning, and the effectiveness of the intervention.
Results and discussion
Results of teaching activities with Big Five Learning of undergraduate students on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course are as follows:
Implementation of the learning unit resulted in a better teamwork & collaboration skill and communication skill on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course as evidenced by results from teamwork & collaboration skill questionnaire, communication skill questionnaire and journal writing. There was no significant difference in the pre-questionnaire scores of teamwork & collaboration skill between the experimental and traditional teaching group (Table 2). However, the post-questionnaire scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the traditional group (Table 3). After completing the learning unit, there was significant difference between pre and post questionnaire on teamwork and
collaboration skill in both groups (Table 2).
Table 2: Pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire scores of the experimental and traditional groups on teamwork & collaboration skill of the undergraduate students before and after completing the learning unit
Group Mean scores of teamwork & collaboration skill
Mean
difference
Standard deviation
T
Pre- questionnaire Post- questionnaire Pre- questionnaire Post- questionnaire
Traditional 1.57 3.14 1.57 0.39 0.14 21.555*
Experimental 1.42 3.69 2.26 0.33 0.36 28.906*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Table 3: Mean Scores of the post-questionnaire on teamwork & collaboration skill of the Experimental and Traditional Groups
Mean Scores of the Post-questionnaire Standard Deviation
T
Experimental
Group Traditional
Group Experimental
Group Traditional
Group
3.69 3.14 0.36 0.14 8.207*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
To confirm that teamwork & collaboration skill in this study occurred through Big Five Learning, a questionnaire was given to students at the beginning and after teaching sequence. The pre-questionnaire reflects their previous classroom experiences, while post-questionnaire reflects the Big Five Learning. The results from paired t-test between pre-and post-questionnaire scores (Figure 2) suggested that the students perceived the intervention as QSCCS learning unit. After completing the learning sequence, the students showed significantly higher scores in the three scales – accountability, helping each other, and open-minded. These results suggested that the students perceived the Big Five learning unit differently from the one in traditional class.
Figure 2: Students’ teamwork & collaboration skill before and after
completing the Big Five learning unit
There was no significant difference in the pre-questionnaire scores of communication skill between the experimental and traditional teaching groups (Table 4). However, the post-questionnaire scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the traditional group (Table 5). After completing the learning unit, there was significant difference between pre and post questionnaire on
communication skill in both two groups (Table 4).
Table 4: Pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire scores of the experimental and traditional groups on communication skill of the undergraduate students before and after completing the learning unit
Group Mean scores of communication skill
Mean
difference
Standard deviation
T
Pre- questionnaire Post- questionnaire Pre- questionnaire Post- questionnaire
Traditional 1.62 3.21 1.59 0.31 0.16 16.037*
Experimental 1.63 3.81 2.19 0.31 0.08 21.706*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Table 5: Mean Scores of the post-questionnaire on communication skill of the Experimental and Traditional Groups
Mean Scores of the Post-questionnaire Standard Deviation
T
Experimental
Group Traditional
Group Experimental
Group Traditional
Group
3.81 3.21 0.08 0.16 9.213*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Similar with teamwork & collaboration skill, the results from paired t-test between pre-and post-questionnaire scores (Figure 3) showed that the students perceived the intervention as Big Five learning unit. After completing the learning sequence, the students showed significantly higher scores in the three scales – speaking, writing, and presentation. These results suggested that the students perceived the Big Five learning unit differently from the traditional class.
Figure 3: Students’ communication skill before and after completing the Big Five
Learning unit
For students’ satisfaction; there was significant difference between pre- and post- questionnaire scores (Figure 4 ตัวหนังสือในรูปทำไมขนาดไม่เท่ากัน) on four scales – subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, educational media, and assessment. ทำไมเอียงมั่งไม่เอียงมั่ง
These results suggested that the students felt จะพูดว่าอะไร รู้สึกอะไร รู้สึกว่าต่างแล้วไง? รู้สึกดี? รู้สึกพอใจ? รู้สึกชอบ? the Big Five learning unit differently from the traditional class. จริงๆ ไม่ต้องพูดก็ได้
ถ้าอยากพูด
These results suggested that the students prefer the Big Five learning unit over the traditional class. ชอบมากกว่า
These results suggested that the students are satisfied with the Big Five learning unit. พอใจ
Figure 4: Students’ satisfaction before and after completing the Big Five Learning unit
Regarding students’ satisfaction, there was no significant difference in the pre-questionnaire scores of students’ satisfaction between the experimental and traditional teaching groups (Table 6). However, the post-questionnaire scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the traditional group (Table 7). After completing the learning unit, there was significant difference between pre and post questionnaire on students’ satisfaction in both groups (Table 6).
Table 6: Pre and post scores of the experimental and traditional groups on satisfaction questionnaire of the undergraduate students before and after completing the learning unit
Group Mean scores of satisfaction questionnaire
Mean
difference
Standard deviation
T
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
Traditional 1.59 3.18 1.59 0.30 0.24 24.657*
Experimental 1.56 3.71 2.16 0.30 0.23 29.417*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Table 7: Mean Scores of the post-questionnaire on undergraduate students’ satisfaction of the Experimental and Traditional Groups
Mean Scores of the Post-questionnaire Standard Deviation
T
Experimental
Group Traditional
Group Experimental
Group Traditional
Group
3.71 3.18 0.23 0.24 9.424*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Results from students’ journal writing also supported data from satisfaction questionnaire. An analysis of the students’ journal writing by using the thematic approach suggested that the students had abilities to learn as group work and teamwork and communicate their data. The following are excerpts from undergraduate students’ writing on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course using Big Five Learning:
• it is a great activity that helps me learn;
• this learning activity gives me a chance to work as a group and communicate confidently;
• it makes the lesson easy and fun to learn;
All the results clearly indicated that Big Five learning unit helped undergraduate students to learn as group work and teamwork and communicate on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course, especially in communication skill.
อ่านแล้วปวดหัว พูดซ้ำไปซ้ำมา
Figure 5 showed that students’ teamwork & collaboration skill, communication skill and students’ satisfaction of the experimental group was significantly higher score than those of the traditional group.
Figure 5: Students’ teamwork & collaboration skill, communication skill and
satisfaction after completing the learning between traditional and experimental group
The above is in accordance with the previous findings that QSCCS learning activity increases students’ satisfaction (Sittiwong, T. & Wongnam, T. (2015); Manyum, W. & Sittiwong, T. (2015). It is also consistent with other studies (Keeratichamroen, W. & Kittisuntorn, C. (2016) that QSCCS learning unit or Big Five learning unit enhances students’ satisfaction on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course. Sittiwong & Wongnam (2015) found that students' opinions concerning implementing QSCCS with Facebook were high ( = 3.69, S.D. = .47).
In this study, the students responded to the Big Five learning scores above 3.5 points.
Students’ teamwork & collaboration skill and communication skill in better Learning Design and Instructional Management Course found in this study is attributable to the activities in the Big Five Learning: the collaborative environment in
doing, discussing and sharing, which helped them to learn from each other.
Conclusions
The findings from this study clearly indicated that the Big Five learning unit enhanced students’ teamwork & collaboration skill and communications skill as evidenced by the post- questionnaire scores on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course. The students also had positive attitude toward this learning unit as shown by the results from a satisfaction questionnaire and journal writing.
It may be concluded here that a better learning is not a result of tools themselves but from teachers who give learners the opportunity to act. The jointly constructed tools contain the 8-step learning process, which continuously enhances the learners’ 21st century skills and motivates the learners to acquire new knowledge by themselves.
Acknowledgements
The research study was supported by Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.
References
Bellanca, James, & Brandt, Ron. (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how
students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Elizabeth, F. Barkley. (2010). Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for
College Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jongkonklang, S. and other. (2013). A study of competency and interaction of
teacher of Coaching and Mentoring under Nakhon Ratchasima Primary Educational Service Area Office 7. Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.
Jongkonklang, S. and other. (2015). A Study of Assessment the development of
teacher to 21st Century Skills under Nakhon Ratchasima Primary Educational Service Area Office 7. Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.
Keeratichamroen, W. & Kittisuntorn, C. (2016). “A study of 21st century learning skills
of undergraduate students on learning design and instructional management course using Big Five Learning.” NRRU Community Research Journal (in press).
Kittisuntorn, C., & Keeratichamroen, W. (2017). “Teamwork & Collaborationskills
and communication skills of undergraduate students on curriculum development course using Big Five Learning.” NRRU Community Research Journal (in press).
Kittisuntorn, C. and other. (2013). A development of administrator, educational
supervisor and teacher under Nakhon Ratchasima Primary Educational Service Area Office 3. Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.
Manyum, W. & Sittiwong, T. (2015). “Studying of 5-Step Learning Process (QSCCS)
for Master’s Degree Students in Educational Technology and Communications Program, Faculty of Education, Naresuan University.” International Conference on New Horizons in Education, Barcelona-SPAIN, June 10-12 2015, 476-481.
Office of the High School. Office of the Basic Education the Ministry of Education.
(2012). The guidelines of the revised international standards of teaching in schools. Bangkok : Agricultural Cooperatives of Thailand .
Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC). (2003). National Education in
Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E.
2545 (2002). Retrieved April 18, 2008 from
http://www.onesqa.or.th/th/about/nation_edbook.pdf
Phanit, W. (2012). Learning for children in 21st Century Skills. Retrieved April 25,
2016 from
http://www.noppawan.sskru.ac.th/data/learn_c21.pdf. [2016, 25 April].
Sittiwong, T. & Wongnam, T. (2015). “The Effective of Using 5 Simple Steps
(QSCCS) Learning Activities on Facebook to Promote Self-learning in the 21st
Century in Technology Printing and Advertising Course for Undergraduate Students in Education Technology and Communications.” Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(11), 843-846.
Tanok, S. and other. (2013). A study of Coaching and Mentoring under Nakhon
Ratchasima Primary Educational Service Area Office 7. Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.
Thaithani, P. and other. (2013). A development by Coaching and Mentoring of
Secondary Educational Service Area Office 31. Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.
Vicheanpant, T. and other. (2015). “A development of tools enhancing 21st century
skills for Thai children and youth’s ASEAN preparation” Sripatum Cholburi Journal, 11(4), 1-8.
A List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Legend of Figure 1
Teaching and learning sequence of the Big Five Learning for undergraduate
students
Legend of Figure 2
Students’ teamwork & collaboration skill before and after completing the Big Five learning unit
Legend of Figure 3
Students’ communication skill before and after completing the Big Five Learning unit
Legend of Figure 4
Students’ satisfaction before and after completing the Big Five Learning unit
Legend of Figure 5
Students’ teamwork & collaboration skill, communication skill and satisfaction after completing the learning between traditional and experimental group
Table 1 The 8-step of Big Five Learning
Office of the Basic Education Commission’s
5-step learning process (QSCCS) 8-step learning process of Big Five Learning
Q = Learning to Question
Before carry out a work project, the students are trained to find problems, ask questions, think, and brainstorm together about the topic of their mutual interests or topic in question. Step 1
Teacher preparation
Step 2
Community survey
Step 3
Brainstorming
S = Learning to search
In order to begin the work project, the students need to search for more information about the subject mat¬ters. The problem-based project learning allows them to learn, find answers, solve problems, and complete all processes together. Step 4
Data analysis and classification
Step 5
Learning design
C = Learning to construct
Integrated learning allows students to incorporate the new knowledge to other subjects and apply them in real life appropriately. Step 6
Doing
C = Learning to communicate
In Backward design learning, a product-based teach¬ing, when students finish the lesson or during a lesson, they are required to have work or product as a result of their study to exchange with others. Step 7
Data conclusion
S = Learning to serve
Upon completion of each lesson, students are able to present and improve their knowledge for the benefit of their own and others. Again, forms of presentation are dependent on the students. Step 8
Knowledge extension
Table 2 Pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire scores of the experimental and traditional groups on teamwork & collaboration skill of the undergraduate students before and after completing the learning unit
Group Mean scores of teamwork & collaboration skill
Mean
difference
Standard deviation
T
Pre- questionnaire Post- questionnaire Pre- questionnaire Post- questionnaire
Traditional 1.57 3.14 1.57 0.39 0.14 21.555*
Experimental 1.42 3.69 2.26 0.33 0.36 28.906*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Table 3 Mean Scores of the post-questionnaire on teamwork & collaboration skill of the Experimental and Traditional Groups
Mean Scores of the Post-questionnaire Standard Deviation
T
Experimental
Group Traditional
Group Experimental
Group Traditional
Group
3.69 3.14 0.36 0.14 8.207*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Table 4 Pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire scores of the experimental and traditional groups on communication skill of the undergraduate students before and after completing the learning unit
Group Mean scores of communication skill
Mean
difference
Standard deviation
T
Pre- questionnaire Post- questionnaire Pre- questionnaire Post- questionnaire
Traditional 1.62 3.21 1.59 0.31 0.16 16.037*
Experimental 1.63 3.81 2.19 0.31 0.08 21.706*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Table Mean Scores of the post-questionnaire on communication skill of the Experimental and Traditional Groups
Mean Scores of the Post-questionnaire Standard Deviation
T
Experimental
Group Traditional
Group Experimental
Group Traditional
Group
3.81 3.21 0.08 0.16 9.213*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Table 6 Pre and post scores of the experimental and traditional groups on satisfaction questionnaire of the undergraduate students before and after completing the learning unit
Group Mean scores of satisfaction questionnaire
Mean
difference
Standard deviation
T
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
Traditional 1.59 3.18 1.59 0.30 0.24 24.657*
Experimental 1.56 3.71 2.16 0.30 0.23 29.417*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
Table 7 Mean Scores of the post-questionnaire on undergraduate students’ satisfaction of the Experimental and Traditional Groups
Mean Scores of the Post-questionnaire Standard Deviation
T
Experimental
Group Traditional
Group Experimental
Group Traditional
Group
3.71 3.18 0.23 0.24 9.424*
* Significant difference (p< 0.05)
About the Authors
Dr. Wasana Keeratichamroen
Lecturer, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University
Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
I had worked at the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) for 12 years. I have been working in Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University since 2012. I am a lecturer at Program in Curriculum and Instruction. I teach graduate and undergraduate students on Learning Design and Instructional Management Course and Curriculum Development Course as well.