Leow Min Hui1* ; Siti Hajar binti Halili2 ; Rafiza binti Abdul Razak3

1Programme Student, Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
2 Senior Lecturer, Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology (CITeD), Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
3 Associate Professor, Head of Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology (CITeD), Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Abstract

This paper presents a framework to analyse students’ learning needs in Malaysia primary school active learning based on the conceptualisation of theorists’ ideas. The needs analysis framework is a good reference for module designing and active learning implementation by clarifying learners’ needs through a triadic reciprocal approach, using theories that draw on the perspective of personal development (constructivism), self-regulation, and environment (ecology). These three perspectives build up a holistic needs analysis framework to discover the needs, potential, and constraint of the active learning route (learning process) in Malaysian primary schools. The needs analysis “route” in the framework contains the criterion available (external feature – ecology / the condition of active learning situation), the existing feature within the pupils’ mind (internal feature – personal development/knowledge, skills, and strategies), and the pupils’ motivation for engaging (bridging of external and internal features – self-regulation). It explains how needs analysis can highlight the potential of full-scale active learning investigation of learners’ needs from the interrelation of internal and external features. The discussion can be generalised to invite future research by providing a firm active learning theoretical foundation, a conceptual lens for active learning needs analysis, and prospects of active learning instructional and pedagogical interventions.

Keywords:Malaysia primary school, Active learning, Needs analysis, Triadic reciprocal, Pre-Design, Framework.

Contribution of this paper to the literature: This study contributes to the existing literature by analysing students’ learning needs in Malaysia primary school active learning based on the conceptualisation of theorists’ ideas.

1. Introduction

A significant rethink of the school curriculum is an essential procedure to equip new generations to better prepare them for future life and work. Coulby (2012) verified that political and economic power has influenced cultural patterns at a global level and these patterns are the normative assumptions that form education systems. Consequently, there is a series of New Jersey Minority Educational Development (NJMED) (2016-2020) published by the New Jersey Minority Educational Development (NJMED) to annually rank nations’ education systems. The report’s mission is to identify areas of needs among students, parents, teachers, educators, and taxpayers from different countries. Overall, the report displays a needs analysis that mirrors the needs of current international education policy. Eventually, the information gathered to reflect the major education needs that help countries and their youths to improve their education quality.

Undeniably, we can summarise that identifying needs is essential in educational planning or implementation. Therefore, this paper would argue that there is a need for, to begin with, a planned integrated process to first investigate learners’ needs, before designing a module or widely implementing active learning in Malaysian primary schools. As though the intention of this paper, needs analysis is the most required stage and a prerequisite in any educational planning. Needs analysis is the fundamental step in module design to provide validity and relevancy for all the follow-up design activities (Johns, 1991; Nunan, 1988; Richards, 1990). It refers to the activity involved in gathering information that serves as the basis for developing a module or curriculum that meets the learning needs of a particular group of learners and establishing priorities among them (Brown, 2001; Iwai et al., 1999; Srijono, 2006). It supports designing tests, compiling materials, designing teaching activities, evaluating strategies, as well as for re-evaluating the precision and accuracy of the original needs analysis for future design (Brown, 2001; Johns, 1991). Therefore, a systematic needs analysis is required to gain a general overview of what has been accomplished through the particular learning situation and what the learners want and need in the future (Li, 2014a). Eventually, this paper proposes a triadic reciprocal framework to run the active learning needs analysis in Malaysia primary school.

2. Background and Issue of Focus

The education transformation in Malaysia is keeping step with present educational circumstances. The Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 shifts responsibility for education towards the individual child, so that learners become “self-paced (MOE, 2013) in setting their learning targets, be expected to pace their learning, and be able to pursue their interest actively (Joseph, 2017; MOE, 2013). One of the prominent T&L programmes in Malaysia currently is active learning, which is highly reflecting the transformation plan mentioned in the blueprint: (1) challenging and high level “active homework” that corresponds to international standards (Ebert-May, Linton, Hodder, & Long, 2005; MOE, 2013) active learning serves as  formative assessment which supports instruction and learning (Adkins, 2018; Demirci. & Düzenli, 2017; MOE, 2013);  (3) teachers sharpen their skills and abilities to support learners’ learning (Edwards, 2015; MOE, 2013); (4) applying technology learning tools to enhance student-centred learning (Gallou & Abrahams, 2018; MOE, 2013; Schrand, 2008) .

Active learning is believed to be an important approach to improve Malaysian education development, beginning from primary school. However, Paramasivam and Ratnavadivel (2018) discovered that pupils face difficulties in accepting new T&L methods because of environmental influences that affect their learning style. Similarly, Sardareh (2014) found that the pupils played an active role in monitoring their learning progress; unfortunately, during class discussions, they were dominated by certain pupils but still highly depended on teachers. Therefore, Lee (2019) concluded that active learning (e.g. flipped learning, self-paced learning) relies heavily on the principle that pupils are self-motivated and committed to their learning; learning goal can’t be achieved because the pupils are less motivated or disciplined. In other words, pupils need a lot of hands-on coaching and constant monitoring rather than self-reliance (Kanyakumari, 2020; Wan, 2020). In summary, pupils are aware of this type of learning, however, they appear to be having a problem shifting from the teacher-based method to actively playing their role in learning (Melor & Nur Rashidah, 2011; Siti & Nurahimah, 2016).

This situation is urgently in need of figuring what factors would probably help the learners to improve their active learning. The field of active learning appears to need effective T&L module guidance as well. However, as a new module emerge, new theories and concepts are needed to initially answer the resulting questions. As such, the focus of this paper is to suggest a needs analysis framework that affiliates with active learning theories and concepts. As though to understand a situation before chasing after solutions, this framework provides a foundation for investigating the current active learning situation of learners. It is seeking to offer information for active learning module design and implementation via learners’ needs and the factors that influence learners’ learning. Although this paper mainly provides framework reference for Malaysian primary schools, undeniably, the framework can be generalised to wider areas or other countries that are akin to the situation raised in this paper.

3. The Literature Review

A. Needs Analysis

A systematic process is needed in creating, designing, and developing an efficient educational module, to meet the requirements and needs of a specific target learning group (Khalil & Elkhider, 2016). By the way, Donmez and Cagiltay (2016) summarised 33 types of design models for both original and implemented sources from the “Google Scholar” database. Approximately, Seels and Glasgow (1998) discovered that there is a common framework that applied for analysing and identifying learners’ learning needs and goals, and the development of a learning system or strategy to meet T&L objectives: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. However, Donnelly and Fitzmaurice (2005) highly suggested beginning a design activity by identifying the areas that need to be assessed.

Hence, among the five processes of module design, “Analysis” is the most important phase in module designing that uses information gained to make plans to meet learners’ needs (Aldoobie, 2015). While, needs analysis is a systematic collection and analysis of all subjective and objective information necessary to define a defensible curriculum proposes that satisfy the learning requirements of learners (Brown, 1995; Brown, 2009), it can serve as a device for gathering an extensive range of input into the content, design, and implementation of the particular module; help in setting goals, objectives, and content by determining general and specific needs of a definite group of learners for further improvement; and provide data which can be used for reviewing and evaluating an existing module (Brown, 1995; Richards, 1990). In brief, needs analysis is a process to find out what someone needs and how those needs can be met (Hyland, 2006; Patton, 1982) to provide the basis for establishing priorities of the related needs and making a decision regarding module planning, development, and operations (Sava, 2012b).

B. Active Learning

Generally, active learning comprises a wide range of activities that are defined as any instructional method that engages learners in the learning process; as long as they do meaningful learning activities and think about what they are doing (Prince, 2004). There are multiple ways for instructors to integrate active learning elements into T&L. Van Hout-Wolters, Simons, and Volet (2000) recommended two forms of active learning, namely self-directed learning and independent work; McManus and Taylor (2009) suggested collaborative learning, cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and work-based learning as active learning strategies; Gardner and Belland (2012) indicated that active learning incorporates problem-solving, collaboration and discussion, animations, and technology-enhanced activities; Lestari, Suprapto, Deta, and Yantidewi (2018) suggested multimodal active learning which includes problem-based learning, cooperative learning type jigsaw, think-pair-share, and direct instruction. Still, some instructors have committed to this call to action by flipping the classroom (Nouri, 2016), blended learning (Hains-Wesson & Tytler, 2015; Jeffrey, Milne, Suddaby, & Higgins, 2014; Precel, Eshet-Alkalai, & Alberton, 2009) , concept mapping (Chen & Wang, 2012; Erasmus, 2013), Socratic discussion (Delic & Becirovic, 2016) and peer reflection/feedback or self-reflection (Jamila & Maslawati, 2017).

On account of keeping pace with current T&L, active learning has been broadly applied in the Malaysian curriculum. Khairiyah, Jamaludin, and Mohd (2004) indicated that cooperative learning and problem-based learning are the most common active learning techniques being promoted across all disciplines as well as levels of studies in Malaysia. With the aspiration of Malaysia Education Blueprint’s 2013-2025 initiatives, the necessities to adapt technology tool in T&L has become imminent. Therefore, recently, Mun et al. (2019) suggested digital smart board as one of the interactive technologies to facilitate active learning, which is fundamental to mastery of skills in primary school pupils. Lee (2019) promoted active learning with the application of flipped learning methodology with the integration of ICT in accommodating the needs of different learning styles, abilities, and interests in primary school pupils; which is similar to the study done by Chis, Moldovan, Murphy, Pathak, and Muntean (2018) that combined flipped classroom and problem-based learning in a computing conversion course to motivate learners to learn actively.


This paper agrees with Daniel (2016)’s proposed view that documenting evidence of “gains in academic success” from the active learning approach and providing a “model for manageable transformations” are two ways to push forward on transforming current education. Built on Daniel (2016)’s first statement, several studies strongly support active learning as the preferred, successful, and empirically validated teaching practice in regular classrooms (Aji & Khan, 2019; Alharbi & Yang, 2019; Demirci, 2017; Freeman et al., 2014; Jamila & Maslawati, 2017; Kalem & Fer, 2003; Luna & Winters, 2017; Sasikumar, 2014; Unal & Sarı, 2013; Zheng, Young, Brewer, & Wagner, 2009) . However, Daniel (2016)’s second statement underlined that it still needs clear guidance for manageable transformations that supports the implementation of active learning to be integrated into new T&L reform (Kimonen & Nevalainen, 2005).

4. Fundamentals for Active Learning Needs Analysis Framework

Overall, situations and functions of a needs analysis are set within the frame based on Munby (1978)’s needs analysis approach of “communication needs processor”. Based on Munby’s work, among the best-known needs analysis, according to Jordan (1997) are target situation analysis, present situation analysis, and pedagogic needs analysis (which includes deficiency analysis, strategy analysis or learning needs analysis and means analysis).

Figure-1. Learning needs analysis model (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987).

Source: Hutchinson and Waters (1987).

Table-1. Ideas of active learning.

Theorists Active Learning Ideas Resources
Jean-Jacques Rousseau Freedom Lu (2019)
Governed by own will John (2014) ; Peckover (2012)
Mind-body relation Curtis and Boultwood (1977) ; Rousseau (1979)
Friedrich Froebel Hands-on / learning by doing Peerzada (2016) ; Provenzo Jr (2009) ; Reinhold, Downton, and Livy (2017)
Freedom Peerzada (2016)
Social participation Peerzada (2016)
Child individuality Roszak (2018)
John Dewey Freedom Dewey (1937) ; Dewey (1938) ; Manav (2016) ; Sikandar (2016)
Individual approach Miovska-Spaseva (2016)
Equity Manav (2016) ; Sikandar (2016)
Value of child’s personal experiential learning of knowledge through interaction with the environment Dewey (1910) ; Liu (2013) ; Manav (2016) ; Miovska-Spaseva (2016) ; Sikandar (2016)
Collaborative learning experience Haynes et al. (2007) ; Hohr (2013)
Social interaction and intercommunication Dewey (1937) ; Dewey (1938) ; Miovska-Spaseva (2016)
Hands-on/ learning by doing Haynes et al. (2007) ; Hohr (2013)
Learning as a process Miovska-Spaseva (2016)
Learning as inquiry and problem-solving Miovska-Spaseva (2016)
Integrated learning environment Miovska-Spaseva (2016)
Rudolf Steiner Free human being Steiner (1894)
Autonomous process Aarau (1995) ; Schieren (2012)
Learning with interest Nuremberg (1996)
Integrated learning environment Gidley (2012)
Maria Montessori Learning with interest Lillard (2005) ; Powell (2009)
Learning with materials Cohen (1968)
Social needs and collaborative arrangement Lillard (2005) ; Powell (2009)
Order in a classroom environment Cohen (1968) ; Lillard (2005) ; Montessori (1912)
Movement and cognition are closely entwined Lillard (2005)
Controlling over work-cycle and own learning time Isaacs (2012) ; Lillard (2005)
Reduce extrinsic rewards Lillard (2005)
Learning in context Lillard (2005)
Ovide Decroly Learning with interest Davenport (1987) ; Decroly (1904)
The natural development of the child Decroly. and Buyse (1923) ; Van Gorp (2007)
Homely living environment Davenport (1987)
William H. Kilpatrick Elicits “wants” or desires, followed by effort and interest Beyer (1999) ; Kruger (2015)
Interactions with social and physical environments Beyer (1999) ; Pecore (2009)
Actions-in-context Beyer (1999)
Alexander Sutherland Neill Freedom of choice Darling (1992) ; Lucas (2005)
Equity Davenport (1987)
Individual interest Neill (1960) ; Neill. (1985)
Innately wise Humes (2015)
Peter Petersen Suitably organised human relationships and interaction Kruger (2015)
The child is free to express his opinion Kruger (2015)
The free development of a child’s inherent potential Kruger (2015)
Play Kruger (2015)
Susan Isaacs Develop thinking from materials Grenier (2009)
Learn with curiosity Grenier (2009)
Independence Isaacs (2013)
Play Isaacs (2013)
Real and active experience Isaacs (2013)
Consider learners’ emotional development and understand their internal needs Isaacs (2013) ; Shapira (2017)
Warm human relationships Isaacs (2013)
Loris Malaguzzi Child rewarded by own efforts, own intelligence, own activity, and energy Malaguzzi (1993)
The child is given the rights to be an active constructor of knowledge Hewett (2001) ; Rinaldi (2012) ; Rinaldi (2013)
Social constructivist approach Edwards (1995)
Space and relation Rinaldi (2012) ; Rinaldi (2013)
Vivian Paley Play Paley (1981) ; Vygotsky (1978)
Friendship Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (2009)
Fairness Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (2009)
Marva Collins Desire and interest to learn Collins and Tamarkin (1982) ; Davenport (1987)
Take care of their learning Collins and Tamarkin (1982)
Respecting and trusting learners’ ability to learn independently Collins and Tamarkin (1982)

This paper proposes learning needs analysis or strategy analysis as an approach to find out what learners need before providing education (Pilcher, 2016). This type of needs analysis has to do with the learning strategies that learners employed under learners’ view of learning (West, 1998). In other words, a learning needs analysis helps learners to identify where they are in terms of their knowledge, skills, and competencies, rather than where they wish to be or what are their learning goals. Hence, it starts from the learners’ perceptions of their needs on their terms (Jordan, 1997). The learning needs analysis applied in this active learning framework advocates a process-oriented approach but not product- or goal-oriented (Songhori, 2008).

Hereby, this paper channels (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987)’s learning needs analysis model into the active learning framework to investigate pupils’ motivation of learning, the way they prefer to learn, the available source, the possible essence for the particular learning situation take place, and the learners’ personal information (Li, 2014b). Based on Figure 1, by considering the starting point as “lacks” and the destination as “necessity”, although there might be some “wants” discord over what the destination should be, there’s a must to consider the “route” as well to understand how do learners going to get from starting point to the destination (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Generally, a gap occurs along the “route” between what is known and what should be known (Fox & Bennett, 1998); but the definition can be moved beyond to include individual’s behaviour or whether he or she acts on the knowledge (Norman, Shannon, & Marrin, 2004). Hence, the “route” presented in (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987) learning needs analysis model is the main discussion of this paper. This paper suggests detailed concepts, theories, features, and elements to be implied in the “route” of this active learning needs analysis.

A. The Seven Key Concepts

Since this paper intends to contribute to primary schools, the focus group is the young students. The idea of active learning for young students is influenced by well-known educators in the 19th and early 20th century. There are rich conceptions embedded in every idea of these theorists, which have explicitly provided a firm philosophical and conceptual foundation for active learning. A list of related active learning theorists with their ideas is illustrated chronologically in Table 1.

Based on the ideas collected from active learning theorists, there are duplicating ideas among them. From the ideas displayed in the table above, they can generate into categories by summarising the similar notions into seven key concepts. Details are shown in Table 2.

Table-2. Seven key concepts of active learning.

  Ideas Key Concepts
1 Freedom
Free human being
Freedom of choice
Controlling over work-cycle and own learning time
Take care of their learning.
Child is free to express his opinion.
Child is given rights to be an active constructor of knowledge.
Equity/ fairness
Autonomous process
Respecting and trusting learners’ ability to learn independently.
Governed by own will.
Child individuality/ individual approach		 Freedom of choice
2 Hands-on/ learning by doing.
Mind-body relation
Movement and cognition are closely entwined.
Real and active experience		 Hands-on and cognition
3 Learn with curiosity.
Learning with interest / desire
Play
Elicits “wants” or desires, follow by effort and interest		 Interest
4 Social interaction/ intercommunication/ social participation
Social constructivist approach
Social needs and collaborative arrangement
Suitably organised human relationships and interaction
Warm human relationships
Friendship
Collaborative learning experience		 Collaborative and interaction
5 Reduce extrinsic rewards.
Child rewarded by own efforts, own intelligences, own activity and energy.
Innately wise
Free development of child’s inherent potential
Consider learners’ emotional development and understand their internal needs		 Intrinsic motivation
6 Actions-in-context
Natural development of child
Learning as a process
Learning as inquiry and problem-solving
Learning in context		 Learning in context
7 Value of child’s experiential learning of knowing through interaction with environment.
Order in classroom environment
Homely living environment
Integrated learning environment
Interactions with social and physical environments
Space and relation
Develop thinking from materials.
Learn with materials		 Environment and materials

B. Element of “Self” under Active Learning Concepts

As a result, there are seven key concepts found within the ideas of active learning theorists, which brace the foundation for active learning implementation. To dive deeply, the theorists highly underpin the “self” element of learners within applying the active learning key concepts. First, Vivian Paley believes that “no matter what age of the learner, someone must be there to listen, respond, and add a dab of glue to the important words that burst forth” (Paley, 1986). In line with this, John Dewey thinks that active learning gives better quality of human experience, which human rights are being more respected; freedom helps learners learn how to control over their impulses and desires as “the ideal aim of education is to create intelligent self-control”, which enable the learners to feel empowered to engage and work towards developing real solution (Dewey, 1937; Dewey, 1938). Similarly, Loris Malaguzzi indicated that a child should be given rights to be an active constructor of knowledge, a researcher, and a social being (Hewett, 2001); while, Peter Petersen also lays emphasizes on child’s free development and rights (Kruger, 2015). These are the discussions about learners’ responsibility to autonomously control and engage in regulating their learning (Biggs, 1994; Peko & Varga, 2014; Simons, 1997; Vickery, 2014) .

Thereby, Stephen, Ellis, and Martlew (2009); Stephen, Ellis, and Martlew (2010) proposed that there is no formal or fixed adherence to “active learning” guidance. Normally, integration of different learning strategies will gain engaged learners to choose and learn freely (Soyemi, Ogunyinka, & Soyemi, 2011) Therefore, Curtis and Boultwood (1977) defined active learning as a system of democratic self-government and freedom as self-regulation that highly display the importance of character and self-determination (Humes, 2015). Then, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that a child can self-reliant and use reason to guide his action (Curtis & Boultwood, 1977), by stressing strongly on the nature self, that is to pursue the natural nature of human beings through education to achieve the state of freedom (Lu, 2019). This notion is supported by Ovide Decroly’s education model of “learning-by-living”, which allows children to progress using independent activities, investigation, and experimentation with their centres of interest Davenport (1987). He intends to ensure the child-oriented and child’s progressive enjoyment of life (Decroly, 1904).

According to Sellars (2006), supporting learners to be independent learners is currently more important than it has ever been in the past. Similarly, Susan Isaacs understands the importance of the work of Jean Piaget and Cyril Burt, and gives each learner opportunity for self-assertion and independence (Grenier, 2009; Isaacs, 2013) . Moreover, Rudolf Steiner emphasises the autonomous learning process by which the knowledge is generated in a person (Aarau, 1995; Schieren, 2012). The autonomous notion displays on human individuality of a child, which the interest lying within a child’s character and his/her intelligence or talent should be recognised (Nuremberg, 1996). Hence, Friedrich Froebel’s respects children’s individuality regarding to their different learning and growing pace as well (Roszak, 2018), and contributes to children’s active learning with self-activity (Peerzada, 2016)). Furthermore, William H. Kilpatrick underlines that the educative process is approached from child’s intention, and tend to be child-oriented, autonomous, and individualism (Pecore, 2009). In precise, Marva Collins offered “philosophy for living” (Collins & Tamarkin, 1982) to develop learners’ minds and enduring self-esteem. The key is the children must be taught to be self-pride, self-control, and resourceful enough to take care of their learning. Based on respecting and trusting learners’ ability to learn independently, Collins emphasizes on teaching the learners to be self-reliance and self-respect (Collins & Tamarkin, 1982).

Undeniably, it is reasonable for Maria Montessori to label the entire active learning as a self-paced method; in the meantime, self-paced becomes a benchmark for active learning as well (Cossentino, 2010; Kirk, Gallagher, Coleman, & Anastasiow, 2011; Montessori & Gutek, 2004). Precisely, Palaigeorgiou and Papadopoulou (2019) suggested that self-paced learners demonstrate impressive self-control, self-discipline, learning autonomy, and successfully manage their progress under particular tools supportive learning circumstance. However, Reinders (2010) indicated that to expect learners to take responsibility to their learning is a lengthy process. Therefore, without proper supports, learners will be generally unaware of the need to, unwilling to, or unsure how to take responsibility for learning on their own (Inkson & Smith, 2001). Allowing and trusting learners to control over their learning produces higher levels of performance than restricting learners’ control (McKinley, Ross, & Benjamin, 2019; Tullis & Benjamin, 2011; Zhu, Yuan, & Guan, 2019) . Hence, Nillsen (2004) indicated that the love of learning is unlikely to be taught, but it is certainly a way of increasing self-awareness. Moreover, Aktas (2017) summarised that the love of learning is the key that motivates learners to participate freely and actively, then results in positive outcomes. In short, self-paced is a primary element that actuates one’s learning desire, to nurture the love of learning, and to assure active participation of learners in learning. 

Eventually, the seven key concepts have delicately met an intersection point of “self” that display the necessity of learners to control over own learning when doing active learning. Undeniably, the “self-paced” has suitably covered the overall intention of “self” in active learning. The Figure 2 shows the genuine notion of active learning that brings out the seven key concepts of active learning and the significance of “self” elements which actuates the whole active learning process.

C. Implied Triadic Theoretical Structure

Generally, “theory” refers to a systematic body of knowledge, grounded in empirical evidence, which can be used for explanatory and predictive purposes (Fox & Bayat, 2007; Saunders, Gray, Tosey, & Sadler-Smith, 2015). Besides, Lauffer (2011) indicated that theories bring together related facts and concepts that describe and interpret. It is recognised that such relation will provide a more powerful explanatory and predictive basis for the framework proposed in this paper. To make it clear, we found that most of the journal studies in published literature that investigate active learning recruited similar theories. Table 3 shows only particular active learning research that have clear elaboration of theories in active learning investigation.


Based on Table 3, the constructivism theories occupy significant status in active learning, in terms of Cognitive Constructivism Theory and Social Constructivism Theory. Cognitive constructivism is a process of constructing a mental image that involved in remembering, problem-solving, and decision making through prior knowledge (Remmel, 2008); however, it gets toned by the external environment that can facilitate developing children (Bhagat, Haque, & Jaalam, 2018; Glasersfeld, 1989; Hirtle, 1996) . Nonetheless, the active learning theoretical foundation doesn’t look holistic if merely involve the constructivism theories. The self-paced element found and implied in the seven key concepts of active learning acts as a core element that actuates the “self” practicality of entire active learning. Therefore, this paper suggests reference from self-paced theories listed in particular research to enrich active learning theories. Similarly, these research have clear elaboration of theories in their field of investigation.

Figure-2. Active learning essence.

Table-3. Active Learning Theories in Research

Author / Year Title / Source Active Learning Theories
Pardjono (2002) Active learning: The Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and constructivist theory perspectives
Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan		 John Dewey’s Theory of Progressive Education Jean Piaget’s Theory of Assimilation and Accommodation (Cognitive Constructivism)
Lev Vygotsky’s Theory of Social Context and Zone of Proximal Development (Social Constructivism)
Walshaw (2004) A powerful theory of active engagement
For the Learning of Mathematics		 Lev Vygotsky’s Constructivist Theory
Swiderski (2011) Transforming principles into practice: Using cognitive active learning strategies in the high school classroom
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas		 Jean Piaget’s Psychological (Cognitive) Constructivism
Atkinson and Shiffrin’s Information Processing Theory
Cattaneo (2017) Telling active learning pedagogies apart: From theory to practice
Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research		 Constructivism theories:
Paulo Freire
Jerome Bruner

Table-4. Self-paced theories in research.

Author / Year Title / Source Self-paced Theories Remarks
Hoffman-Biencourt, Lockl, Schneider, Ackerman, and Koriat (2010) Self-paced study time as a cue for recall predictions across school age
British Journal of Developmental Psychology		 Self-regulation Theory Reciprocal causation (cognition – socialisation – environment)
Koriat and Ackerman (2010) Metacognition and mindreading: Judgements of learning for self and other during self-paced study
Consciousness & Cognition		 Simulation Theory Theory of Mind Constructivism
Hoffler and Schwartz (2011) Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations
Computers & Education		 Interactivity (learning environment, behavioural activity, and cognitive or metacognitive activity) Reciprocal causation (cognition – socialisation – environment)
Tullis and Benjamin (2011) On the effectiveness of self-paced learning
Journal of Memory and Language		 Discrepancy Reduction Theory
Region of Proximal Learning Theory		 Constructivism
Bautista (2015) Optimizing classroom instruction through self-paced learning prototype
Journal of Technology and Science Education (JOTSE)		 Zimmerman’s Model of Self-Regulated Learning Strategy
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory		 Reciprocal causation (cognition – socialisation – environment)
DeVore, Marshman, and Singh (2017) Challenge of engaging all students via self-paced interactive electronic learning tutorials for introductory physics.
Physical Review Physics Education Research		 Cognitive Apprenticeship Learning Model (Scaffolding) Constructivism

Based on Table 4, constructivism theories still play a major role. Apart from the constructivism factor, the theories are also dispersed in another aspect, namely self-regulation, which highly relates personal factor with the learning environment. Hereby, the environment component includes all the ecological level or external factor that influences learner’s development, such as teacher, peers, activities, materials, time, space, home, school, social or culture, and educational background (Bronfenbrenner, 1997) . In this context, Hoffler and Schwartz (2011) indicated that by allowing learners to adjust the rate of incoming information, the more complex controls of a learning environment may support higher-level metacognitive activity by requiring learners to focus on whether and when to utilize those controls. In addition, Koriat and Ackerman (2010) suggested that besides interpreting learners’ behaviour and needs, they should be supported by giving chances to observe other person’s behaviour and simulate their actions in minds. Therefore, we summarise that personal factors and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants of each other (Bandura, 1986; DeVore et al., 2017; Roszak, 2018) . Hence, this paper suggests that to interpret active learning within its seven key concepts more precisely, it could be beneficial from a triadic reciprocal approach using theories that draw on the perspective of personal development (constructivism), self-regulation, and environment (ecology), as shown in Figure 3.

Figure-3. Triadic Theoretical Structure.

5. Discussion: A Triadic ReciprocalNeeds Analysis Framework

First of all, triadic reciprocal is a term introduced by Bandura (1986) refer to the multiple perspective influence between personal, behaviour, and environment factor. Person-Behaviour speaks to the consistency of individual differences and behaviour (Leikas, Lönnqvist, & Verkasalo, 2012). Personal factors include instincts, drives, traits and other individual motivational factors; whereas, behaviour is something that performed under a particular environment (Bandura, 1986). In other words, personality is what you are; behaviour is what you do (Stuart-Kotze, 2006). They are related because self-efficacy (a personal factor) can influence effort (achievement behaviour); and learners’ behaviour can also change efficacy beliefs (Azizah, 2012).

Figure-4. Active Learning Needs Analysis Framework.

Next, Behaviour-Environment can be illustrated by learners’ behaviour and learning environment (Fiskum & Jacobsen, 2012). Normally, learners’ behaviour can change the instructional environment with different form, outcome, and efficiency, which consequently occur differentiated learning; conversely, environment influences on learners’ behaviour development in terms of instructions and physical setting (Azizah, 2012; Bandura, 1986; Harinie, Sudiro, Rahayu, & Fatchan, 2017). In the aspect of Person-Environment, learning environment supports learners’ comfort, degree of flexibility, time-saving, and ownership of space and equipment (Higgins, Hall, Wall, Woolner, & McCaughey, 2005); on the contrary, learners with different self-efficacy and attribute can affect class atmosphere as well, which might result in either dynamic or lethargic learning environment (Holland, 1997; Robitschek & Woodson, 2006). 

In brief, Bandura (1986) indicated that people are neither driven by inner force nor automatically shaped and controlled by external stimuli; rather, human functioning is operated in which behaviour, cognitive or other personal factors and environmental events interacting with each other. Based on Bandura (1986) description, and in the view of researchers’ understanding, the factor that holds the link among behaviour, personal factors and environmental events is neither internal nor external force indeed; whereas, it needs affiliation of both internal force and external stimuli.

The choosing of needs analysis “route” in the framework is according to the criterion available (external feature - the condition of active learning situation), the existing feature within the pupils’ mind (internal feature - knowledge, skills, and strategies), and the pupils’ motivation for engaging (bridging of external and internal features – self-regulation). Each feature has implicated relationships with one another. Sava (2012a) indicated that the questions of “inside” and “outside” is the central importance of needs analysis. Such as, affective, or subjective needs refer to an “inside-out” process, which evolves internally in a variety of individual processes and is then directed towards the outside; however, analysing the environment plays an especially pivotal role as well because acting subjects will not develop a need without a clear perception of change and impact processes in their learning environment. Therefore, the “inside” and “outside” features are usually relying on each other.

Similarly, DeVore et al. (2017) indicated that a holistic framework can help a diverse group to learn effectively, especially focus on user’s characteristics (internal) and the characteristics of the user’s environment interaction (external). Moreover, Friedrich Froebel elaborated further about a child has internal (experiences, impressions, findings, emotions) and external worlds (social-environmental reality) to be taken into account (Roszak, 2018). Briefly, human functioning is explained in terms of a triadic reciprocal approach in which behaviour, personal factors, and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants of each other.

Based on Figure 4, this active learning needs analysis framework is braced by Hutchinson and Waters (1987) learning needs analysis model. Then, the seven key concepts of active learning activities as the main outline for this active learning needs analysis. To enrich the investigation structure of active learning, the key concepts are supplemented with another three perspectives:constructivism, self-regulation, and ecology. Each of them is embodied with related theories. In short, constructivism is a perspective that braced the internal feature which includes cognitive and social constructivism theories; ecology is a perspective that builds up an external context or environment of active learning classroom which displays a chronosystem of individual and peers, family, classroom or school, and cultural or social setting based on the related community; whereas, self-regulation acts as a bridge to straighten up a clear equation expressing the relationship between internal (constructivism) and external (ecology) features, by interrelating the overall connection among person, behaviour, and environment into a triadic reciprocal state.

In brief, the framework specifically focuses on learners’ essentiality in the educational context. The interaction and interrelation of every element, theories, features, and concept in the framework significantly act as the main route or process to investigate learners’ needs in active learning. Precisely, this is where the needs, potential, and constraint of the route (learning process) acquired, to gain comprehensive information of active learning for further actions.

The integrated investigation through the triadic reciprocal approach provides a big picture of the active learning implementation process, and it contributes full-scale active learning needs analysis about further research. Overall, the findings from the framework contribute the subsequent research to gain a comprehensive understanding of the basic active learning learners’ needs requirement and the prospect of active learning investigation. Accordingly, it informs administrators, instructors, curriculum developers and instructional designers to proceed with active learning mainly based on student’s needs and responses to instructional and pedagogical interventions. By contributing to stakeholders’ knowledge and understanding in this area, future design, implementation, and evaluation plans may be impacted positively, especially on the role of instructors and learners. In other words, when the designed module’s content, materials, environment, and teaching approaches match with learners’ perceived and actual needs, learners’ motivation and success can be enhanced (Pushpanathan, 2012).

6. Conclusion

This paper makes several important replenishments to the field of active learning.

First, this paper provides a detailed summary of active learning theorists’ notions. It displays overall acknowledgement about ideas, concepts, and elements to be applied in active learning. In addition, this paper further establishes the key concepts grounded from many duplicating ideas of active learning theorists. This is intended to highlight the structural foundation of active learning to serve as a basis to generate active learning theories.

Next, this paper explains how the seven key concepts and “self” elements of active learning can be used to build and elaborate active learning theories. In essence, this paper explains to readers what the theories are and from what perspectives do the related theories derive. It provides an elaboration of how to deploy the theories in the active learning needs analysis framework through the triadic reciprocal approach. This effort is intended to provide a blueprint for elaborating specific theories in active learning implementation through internal and external stimuli. It magnifies the full-scale process of developing a framework for further active learning investigation by including constructivism, self-regulation, and ecological features.

This paper makes a noteworthy contribution to future active learning module design by identifying learners’ needs through learning needs analysis. This helps illustrate the aspects of needs where an active learning module can be accomplished for wider implementation. This effort is intended to spur further interest and action in the development of active learning. Based on active learning concepts, theories, elements, and features, this paper explains how needs analysis can be done through the proposed framework. This helps highlight to active learning researchers the potential of employing needs analysis to investigate learners’ needs in active learning.  

It is important to conclude by emphasising that sustained efforts and multiple studies on active learning are required. A fine active learning module can only be developed over time and would certainly benefit from the combined efforts of multiple studies by multiple researchers. This paper initially suggests the first step analysis of active learning learners’ needs, it benefits the coming researchers to investigate the phenomena of interest around which part of active learning development is deemed necessary. This is particularly important for advancing the field.

Citation:| Leow Min Hui; Siti Hajar binti Halili; Rafiza binti Abdul Razak (2021). Pre-Design for Primary School Active Learning Module: A Triadic Reciprocal Needs Analysis Framework. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 8(3): 299-312.
History: Received:26 May 2021/ Revised:5 July 2021 / Accepted:28 July 2021 / Published:17 August 2021
Acknowledgement:All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.
Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing. 
Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group

References

Aarau. (1995). The fundamentals of Waldorf education. In R. Steiner (Ed.), Waldorf education and anthroposophy (pp. 97-143). New York, Hudson: Anthroposophic Press.

Adkins, J. K. (2018). Active learning and formative assessment in a user-centered design course. Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ), 16(4), 34-40.

Aji, C. A., & Khan, M. J. (2019). The impact of active learning on students’ academic performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3), 204-211. Available at:https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.73017 .

Aktas, C. B. (2017). Listening to young children: Applying montessori’s method to English as an additional language (EAL) education. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(1), 1-7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeedu.20170601.11 .

Aldoobie, N. (2015). ADDIE Model. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 5(6), 68-72.

Alharbi, A. A. M., & Yang, C. (2019). Impact of active learning on Mathematical achievement: An empirical study in Saudi Arabia primary schools. Journal of International Business Research and Marketing, 4(3), 43-51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18775/jibrm.1849-8558.2015.42.3005 .

Azizah, M. Z. (2012). Self-regulation in English language learning: Case studies of six Malaysian undergraduates. Doctoral Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.  

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bautista, R. G. (2015). Optimizing classroom instruction through self-paced learning prototype. Journal of Technology and Science Education (JOTSE), 5(3), 184-193. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.162 .

Beyer, L. E. (1999). William Heard Kilpatrick (1871-1965). Prospects: The quarterly review of comparative education. Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 27(3), 470-485. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02736644 .

Bhagat, V., Haque, M., & Jaalam, K. (2018). Enrich schematization in children: Play as the tool for cognitive development. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science, 8(07), 128-131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7324/JAPS.2018.8720 .

Biggs, J. (1994). Improving student learning – Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. (2009). The importance of fantasy, fairness, and friendship in children’s play: An interview with Vivian Gussin Paley. American Journal of Play, 2(2), 121-138.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. D. (2009). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In M. H. Long, & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 269-293). Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Cattaneo, K. H. (2017). Telling active learning pedagogies apart: From theory to practice. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(2), 144-152. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2017.7.237 .

Chen, W. K., & Wang, P. (2012). A framework of active learning by concept mapping. US-China Education Review, A(11), 946-952.

Chis, A. E., Moldovan, A.-N., Murphy, L., Pathak, P., & Muntean, C. H. (2018). Investigating flipped classroom and problem-based learning in a programming module for computing conversion course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 232-247.

Cohen, S. (1968). Educating the children of the urban poor. Education and Urban Society, 1, 61-79. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001312456800100105 .

Collins, M., & Tamarkin, C. (1982). Marva Collins' way. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, Inc.

Cossentino, J. (2010). Following all the children: Early intervention and Montessori. Montessori Life, 1(8), 1-8.

Coulby, D. (2012). Globalisation: Old and new normative strategies in education. Issues in Educational Research, 22(1), 29-35.

Curtis, M. A., & Boultwood, M. E. A. (1977). A short history of educational ideas. London: University of Tutorial Press.

Daniel, K. L. (2016). Impacts of active learning on student outcomes in large-lecture Biology courses. The American Biology Teacher, 78(8), 651-655. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.8.651 .

Darling, J. (1992). A. S. Neill on democratic authority: A lesson from Summerhill? Oxford Review of Education, 18(1), 45-57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498920180104 .

Davenport, L. P. C. (1987). Maria Montessori, A. S. Neill and Marva Collins: Educating the human potential. Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University. 

Decroly, O. (1904). Social wounds and remedies. For School, 4(15), 406-410.

Decroly, O., & Buyse, R. (1923). American applications of organizational psychology human and education. Brussels: Lamertin.

Delic, H., & Becirovic, S. (2016). Socratic method as an approach to teaching. European Researcher, 111(10), 511-517. Available at: https://doi.org/10.13187/er.2016.111.511 .

Demirci, C. (2017). The effect of active learning approach on attitudes of 7th grade students. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 129-144. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1048a .

Demirci, C., & Düzenli, H. (2017). Formative value of an active learning strategy: Technology based think-pair-share in an EFL writing classroom. World Journal of Education, 7(6), 63-74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v7n6p63 .

DeVore, S., Marshman, E., & Singh, C. (2017). Challenge of engaging all students via self-paced interactive electronic learning tutorials for introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), 1-18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.13.010127 .

Dewey, J. (1910). The experimental theory of knowledge. In J. Dewey (Ed.), The influence of Darwin on philosophy, and other essays in contemporary thought (pp. 77-111). New York: Holt: Rinehart and Winston.

Dewey, J. (1937). Education and social change. Bulletin of the America Association of University Professors, 23(6), 472-474. Available at:https://doi.org/10.2307/40219908 .

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. United States: Kappa Delta Pi.

Donmez, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2016). A review and categorization of instructional design models. Paper presented at the Paper Presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Washington, DC, United States.

Donnelly, R., & Fitzmaurice, M. (2005). Designing modules for learning. In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching (pp. 99-110). Dublin: AISHE Readings.

Ebert-May, D., Linton, D. L., Hodder, J., & Long, T. (2005). Active homework: Preparation for active classes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(5), 283-284. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0283:AHPFAC]2.0.CO;2 .

Edwards, C. P. (1995). Democratic participation in a community of learners: Loris Malaguzzi's philosophy of education as relationship. Faculty Publications, Department of Child, Youth, and Family Studies, 9(15), 1-13.

Edwards., S. (2015). Active learning in the middle grades. Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE), 46(5), 26-32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2015.11461922 .

Erasmus, C. J. (2013). Concept mapping as a strategy to enhance learning and engaging students in the classroom. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 31(1), 27-35.

Fiskum, T. A., & Jacobsen, K. (2012). Relation between the school environment and the children’s behaviour. The Open Education Journal, 5, 39-51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874920801205010039 .

Fox, R. D., & Bennett, N. L. (1998). Learning and change: Implications for continuing medical education. British Medical Journal, 316(7129), 466-468. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7129.466 .

Fox, W., & Bayat, M. S. (2007). A guide to managing research. Cape Town: JUTA and Co Ltd. Shredding.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 .

Gallou, E., & Abrahams, P. (2018). Creating space for active learning: (Opportunities from) using technology in research-based education. In C. H. T. Vincent, A. Standen, & M. Sotiriou (Ed.), Shaping higher education with students (pp. 165-175). United Kingdom, UK: UCL Press.

Gardner, J., & Belland, B. R. (2012). A conceptual framework for organizing active learning experience in Biology instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 465-475. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9338-8 .

Gidley, J. M. (2012). Steiner, Rudolf (1861-1925). In N. M. Seel (Ed.) Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 3188-3191). Boston, MA: Springer.

Glasersfeld, E. V. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese: History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching, 80(1), 121-140. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869951 .

Grenier, J. (2009). Learning and development Susan Issacs. Nursery World. Retrieved from: https://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/089NurseryWorld_Wise_words.pdf .

Hains-Wesson, R., & Tytler, R. (2015). A perspective on supporting STEM academics with blended learning at an Australian university. Issues in Education Research, 25(4), 460-479.

Harinie, L. T., Sudiro, A., Rahayu, M., & Fatchan, A. (2017). Study of the Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory for the entrepreneurship learning process. Social Sciences, 6(1), 1-6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20170601.11 .

Haynes, J.-D., Sakai, K., Rees, G., Gilbert, S., Frith, C., & Passingham, R. E. (2007). Reading hidden intentions in the human brain. Current Biology, 17(4), 323-328. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.11.072 .

Hewett, V. M. (2001). Examining the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Early Childhood Educational Journal, 29(2), 95-100. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012520828095 .

Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. London: Design Council.

Hirtle, J. S. P. (1996). Coming to terms: Social constructivism. The English Journal, 85(1), 91-92.

Hoffler, T. N., & Schwartz, R. N. (2011). Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1716-1726. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.012 .

Hoffman-Biencourt, A., Lockl, K., Schneider, W., Ackerman, R., & Koriat, A. (2010). Self-paced study time as a cue for recall predictions across school age. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 767-784. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1348/026151009X479042 .

Hohr, H. (2013). The concept of experience by John Dewey revisited: Conceiving, feeling and “enliving”. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32(1), 25-38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9330-7 .

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Humes, W. (2015). A.S. Neill and Scotland: Attitudes, omissions and influences. Scottish Educational Review, 47(1), 66-85.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cam¬bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London, UK: Routledge.

Inkson, D., & Smith, E. (2001). Self-paced learning: A student perspective. Australian Educational Researcher, 28(1), 107-128. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03219746.

Isaacs, B. (2012). Teaching and learning in Montessori nurseries. In B. Isaacs (Ed.), Understanding the Montessori approach: Early years education in practice. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Isaacs, S. (2013). The educational value of the nursery school (2nd ed.). London: The British Association for Early Childhood Education.

Iwai, T., Kondo, K., Lim, D. S. J., Ray, G. E., Shimizu, H., & Brown, J. D. (1999). Japanese language needs assessment 1998-1999. Honolulu: University of Hawai’I.

Jamila, S., & Maslawati, M. (2017). Identifying the effectiveness of active learning strategies and benefits in curriculum and pedagogy course for undergraduate TESL students. Creative Education, 8, 2312-2324. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.814158 .

Jeffrey, L. M., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended learning: How teachers balance the blend of online and classroom components. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 121-140. Available at: https://doi.org/10.28945/1968 .

John, E. O. (2014). A philosophical appraisal of Rousseau’s child-centered education and its imports to Nigeria’s leadership question. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(24), 119-123.

Johns, A. (1991). English for specific purposes: its history and contribution. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 67-77). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd.

Joseph, C. (2017). Malaysian geopolitics, ethnoscapes and education policy. In C. Joseph (Ed.), Policies and politics in Malaysian education: Education reforms, nationalism and neoliberalism (Routledge critical studies in Asian education) (pp. 1-16). United Kingdom: Routledge.

Kalem, S., & Fer, S. (2003). The effects of active learning model on the learning, teaching and communication process of students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 3(2), 456-461.

Kanyakumari, D. (2020). Home-based learning: Odds stacked against teachers in Malaysia’s public primary schools, while private counterparts are more prepared. Channel News Asia. Retrieved from: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-covid-19-home-based-learning-primary-school-teachers-12735306.

Khairiyah, M. Y., Jamaludin, H., & Mohd, S. A. (2004). Promoting active learning in University of Technology Malaysia: A bottom-up, top-down approach. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Engineering Education. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147-156. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015 .

Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R. (2005). Active learning in the process of educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 623-635. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.003 .

Kirk, S., Gallagher, J. J., Coleman, M. R., & Anastasiow, N. J. (2011). Educating exceptional children (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Koriat, A., & Ackerman, R. (2010). Metacognition and mindreading: Judgements of learning for self and other during self-paced study. Consciousness & Cognition, 19(1), 251-264. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.010 .

Kruger, E. G. (2015). Infant education in the twentieth century: A few significant didactic models. In T. L. Verster (Ed.), A historical pedagogical investigation of infant education (pp. 167-206). Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Lauffer, A. (2011). Understanding your social agency (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lee, Y. S. (2019). Promoting active learning and independent learning among primary school students using flipped classroom. International Journal of Education, 4(30), 324-341.

Leikas, S., Lönnqvist, J.-E., & Verkasalo, M. (2012). Persons, situations, and behaviors: Consistency and variability of different behaviors in four interpersonal situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 1007-1022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030385.

Lestari, N. A., Suprapto, N., Deta, U. A., & Yantidewi, M. (2018). Implementation of multimodel active learning to improve basic teaching skills of pre-service Physics teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1108. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012119 .

Li, J. (2014a). Literature review of the classification of “needs” in needs analysis theory. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 2(3), 12-16. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.2n.3p.12.

Li, J. (2014b). Needs analysis: An effective way in business English curriculum design. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(9), 1869-1874. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.9.1869-1874 .

Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Liu, H. (2013). The influence of evolution on Dewey’s educational and philosophical thoughts. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity, 3(2), 83-86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2013.V3.200 .

Lu, Y. (2019). Exploring Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s nature education thought from Emile. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 82, 419-422. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2991/icmete-19.2019.100 .

Lucas, H. (2005). Neill and Summerhill. The Magazine of Alternative Education: Education Revolution, 40, 21-27.

Luna, Y. M., & Winters, S. A. (2017). “Why did you blend my learning?” A comparison of student success in lecture and blended learning introduction to sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 45(2), 116-130. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X16685373 .

Malaguzzi, L. (1993). Your image of the child: Where teaching begins. Exchange, 3(94), 1-5.

Manav, F. (2016). The concept of experience in John Dewey’s philosophy of education. The Journal of Turk & Islam World Social Studies, 3(8), 36-45.

McKinley, G. L., Ross, B. H., & Benjamin, A. S. (2019). The role of retrieval during study: Evidence of reminding from self-paced study time. Memory & Cognition, 47(5), 877-892. Available at:https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00897-6 .

McManus, M., & Taylor, G. (2009). Active learning and active citizenship: Theoretical context. Birmingham: Sociology, Anthropology, Politics (C-SAP), The Higher Education Academy Network.

Melor, M. Y., & Nur Rashidah, K. R. A. (2011). Motivation and attitudes for learning English among year six students in primary rural school. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2631-2636. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.160 .

Miovska-Spaseva, S. (2016). The educational theory of John Dewey and its influence on educational policy and practice in Macedonia. Space, Time and Education, 3(2), 207-224. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14516/ete.2016.003.002.009 .

MOE. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025: Preschool to post-secondary education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Author.

Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company.

Montessori, M., & Gutek, G. L. (2004). The Montessori method: The origins of an educational innovation: Including an abridged and annotated edition of Maria Montessori’s the Montessori method. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc.

Mun, S., Abdullah, A., Mokhtar, M., Ali, D., Jumaat, N., Ashari, Z., & Rahman, K. (2019). Active learning using digital smart board to enhance primary school students’ learning. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Techonologies, 13(7), 4-16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i07.10654 .

Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Neill, A. (1985). A radical approach to child-rearing. Harmondsworth, England: Hart Publishing Company.

New Jersey Minority Educational Development (NJMED). (2016-2020). World top 20 project: Global education report. Retrieved from: https://worldtop20.org/global-education-report .

Nillsen, R. (2004). Can the love of learning be taught? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 1(1), 1-9.

Norman, G. R., Shannon, S. I., & Marrin, M. L. (2004). The need for needs assessment in continuing medical education. British Medical Journal, 328(7446), 999-1001. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7446.999

Nouri, J. (2016). The flipped classroom: For active, effective and increased learning–especially for low achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1-10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0032-z .

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nuremberg. (1996). Interests, talents, and educating children. In R. Steiner (Ed.), The education of the child (pp. 71-88). New York, Hudson: Anthroposophic Press.

Palaigeorgiou, G., & Papadopoulou, A. (2019). Promoting self-paced learning in the elementary classroom with interactive video, an online course platform and tablets. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 805-823. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9804-5 .

Paley, V. G. (1981). Wally’s stories: Conversations in the Kindergarten. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Paley, V. G. (1986). On listening to what the children say. Harvard Educational Review, 56(2), 122-132. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.56.2.p775487x30tk69m8 .

Paramasivam, T., & Ratnavadivel, N. (2018). Issues and challenges in managing curriculum change in primary schools: A case study of managing Year Four History Curriculum in the District of Kuala Selangor, Malaysia. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers and Teacher Education, 8(1), 18-31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.37134/jrpptte.vol8.no1.3.2018 .

Pardjono, P. (2002). Active learning: The Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and constructivist theory perspectives. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 9(3), 163-178.

Patton, M. Q. (1982). Practical evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Peckover, C. (2012). Realizing the natural self: Rosseau and the current system of education. Philosophical Studies in Education, 43(1), 84-94.

Pecore, J. L. (2009). A case study of secondary teachers facilitating a historical problem-based learning instructional unit. Doctoral Dissertaion, Georgia State University.  

Peerzada, N. (2016). Educational ideas of Fridrich August Froebel. International Journal of Scientific Research and Education, 4(2), 4983-4988.

Peko, A., & Varga, R. (2014). Active learning in classrooms. Life and School: A Journal of Theory and Practice of Education, 60(31), 59-75.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood (Gattegno, C. and Hodgson, F. M. Trans.). New York: W.W. Norton Company.

Pilcher, J. (2016). Learning needs assessment: Not only for continuing education. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 32(4), 185-191. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1097/nnd.0000000000000281 .

Powell, M. (2009). Is Montessori ready for the Obama generation? Montessori Life, 21(2), 18-28.

Precel, K., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Alberton, Y. (2009). Pedagogical and design aspects of a blended learning course. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(2), 1-16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i2.618 .

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x .

Provenzo Jr, E. F. (2009). Friedrich Froebel’s gifts: Connecting the spiritual and aesthetic to the real world of play and learning. American Journal of Play, 2(1), 85-99.

Pushpanathan, T. (2012). A need for needs analysis. International Journal of Applied Research & Studies, 2(1), 1-6.

Reinders, H. (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of independent language learning skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 35(5), 40-55. Available at: .

Reinhold., S., Downton, A., & Livy, S. (2017). Revisiting friedrich froebel and his gifts for Kindergarten: What are the benefits for primary Mathematics education? In A. Downton, S. Livy, & J. Hall (Eds.), 40 years on: We are still learning! Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Melbourne: MERGA.

Remmel, E. (2008). Constructing cognition. American Scientist, 96(1), 80-82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1511/2008.69.80 .

Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rinaldi, C. (2012). Re-imagining childhood: The inspiration of Reggio Emilia education principles in South Australia. Adelaide, South Australia: Government of South Australia.

Rinaldi, C. (2013). Re-imagining childhood: The inspiration of Reggio Emilia education principles in South Australia. Adelaide, South Australia: Government of South Australia.

Robitschek, C., & Woodson, S. J. (2006). Vocational psychology: Using one of counseling psychology's strengths to foster human strength. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(2), 260-275. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005281321 .

Roszak, M. (2018). Friedrich Froebel's pedagogucal concet within Polish pre-school education: The revival of 19th century thought in modern institutional upbringing of children. Society Register, 2(2), 149-162. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2018.2.2.08 .

Rousseau, J. (1979). Emile or on education. New York, United States: Ingram Publisher Services.

Sardareh, S. A. (2014). Assessment for learning in Malaysian ESL primary school context. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Auckland, New Zealand.  

Sasikumar, N. (2014). Impact of active learning strategies to enhance student performance. Innovare Journal of Education, 2(1), 1-3.

Saunders, M. N. K., Gray, D. E., Tosey, P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Concepts and theory building. In L. Anderson, J. Gold, J. Stewart, & R. Thorpe (Eds.), A guide to Professional Doctorates in Business and Management (pp. 35-56). London: Sage Publications.

Sava, S. (2012a). Methods of needs analysis in education context. In S. Sava (Ed.), Needs analysis and programme planning in adult education (pp. 59-87). Germany: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Sava, S. (2012b). Needs analysis for planning educational programmes. In S. Sava (Ed.), Needs analysis and programme planning in adult education (pp. 89-118). Germany: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Schieren, J. (2012). The concept of learning in Waldorf education. RoSE–Research on Steiner Education, 3(1), 63-74.

Schrand, T. (2008). Tapping into active learning and multiple intelligences with interactive multimedia. College Teaching, 56(2), 78-84. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3200/ctch.56.2.78-84 .

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Using models and paradigms. In B. Seels, & Z. Glasgow (Eds.), Making Instructional Design Decisions (2nd ed.) (pp. 342). New York: Merrill.

Sellars, M. (2006). The role of intrapersonal intelligence in self-directed learning. Issues in Educational Research, 16(1), 95-119.

Shapira, M. (2017). Speaking Kleinian: Susan Isaacs as Ursula wise and the inter-war popularisation of psychoanalysis. Medical History, 61(4), 525-547. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2017.57 .

Sikandar, A. (2016). John Dewey and his philosophy of education. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 2(2), 191-201. Available at: https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v2i2.446 .

Simons, P. (1997). Definitions and theories of active learning. In D. Stern, & G. Huber (Eds.), Active Learning for Students and Teachers: Reports from Eight Countries (pp. 19–39). Frankfurt & New York: Peter Lang.

Siti, S., & Nurahimah, M. Y. (2016). Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards the use of student-centred learning in English language classes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ICECRS. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Songhori, M. H. (2008). Introduction to needs analysis. English for Specific Purposes World, 4(20), 1-25.

Soyemi, J., Ogunyinka, O. I., & Soyemi, O. B. (2011). Intergrating self-paced e-learning with conventional classroom learning in Nigeria educational system. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(4), 127-133.

Srijono, D. (2006). Needs analysis and course design. Linguistic and Literary Studies, 18(1), 47-55.

Steiner, R. (1894). The philosophy of freedom. Germany, Berlin: The Rudolf Steiner Press.

Stephen, C., Ellis, J., & Martlew, J. (2009). Turned on to learning 2: Active learning in Primary One. Applied Educational Research Scheme, Research Briefing 8. Retrieved from: http://www.ioe.stir.ac.uk/staff/stephen.php.

Stephen, C., Ellis, J., & Martlew, J. (2010). Taking active learning into the primary school: A matter of new practices? International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(4), 315-329. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2010.531916 .

Stuart-Kotze, R. (2006). Performance: The secrets of successful behaviour. Canada: Pearson Education.

Swiderski, S. M. (2011). Transforming principles into practice: Using cognitive active learning strategies in the high school classroom. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(6), 239-243. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.590549 .

Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 109-118. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002 .

Unal, S., & Sarı, İ. (2013). Changing students’ attitudes towards L2 by teaching values in L2. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1413-1423. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.205 .

Van Gorp, A. (2007). Ovide Decroly, a hero of education. In P. Smeyers, & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational research: Why ‘what works’ doesn’t work (pp. 37-50). Netherlands: Springer.

Van Hout-Wolters, B., Simons, R. J., & Volet, S. (2000). Active learning: Self-directed learning and independent work. In R. J.

 Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New Learning (pp. 21-36). Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Vickery, A. (2014). Frameworks for Thinking. In J. Clark (Ed.), Developing active learning in the primary classroom (pp. 1-18). India: Sage Publications.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Walshaw, M. (2004). A powerful theory of active engagement. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(3), 4-10.

Wan, C. (2020). Malaysia: An unexpected disruption to teaching and learning. The Head Foundation. Retrieved from: https://headfoundation.org/2020/06/16/malaysia-an-unexpected-disruption-to-teaching-and-learning/.

West, R. (1998). ESP – State of the art. Paper presented at the Networking for ESP – An Anti-Conference, Switzerland.

Zheng, D., Young, M. F., Brewer, R. A., & Wagner, M. (2009). Attitude and self-efficacy change: English language learning in virtual worlds. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 205-231. Available at:https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.1.205-231 .

Zhu, Q., Yuan, N., & Guan, D. (2019). Cognitive driven multilayer self-paced learning with misclassified samples. Complexity, 2019(6), 1-10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8127869.

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article.