The status of using integrated teaching in education scientific research methods for students in educational universities

This paper analyzes the status of teaching ESRM for students in educational universities using an integrated perspective. The results of the survey showed that, lecturers mainly used “Intradisciplinary” and “Integrating/combining”. Lecturers used a combination of a number of positive teaching methods, teaching techniques.

This paper is available online at http://stdb.hnue.edu.vn

THE STATUS OF USING INTEGRATED TEACHING IN EDUCATION SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH METHODS FOR STUDENTS IN EDUCATIONAL UNIVERSITIES

Pham Thi Dieu Thuy

Faculty of Psychology and Pedagogy, Hanoi National University of Education

Abstract Educational scientific research methods (ESRM) is a module that plays an

important role in helping educational students to improve their self-study ability, scientific research capacity, further access to professional practice and meet the output standards of teacher training programs at educational universities This paper analyzes the status of teaching ESRM for students in educational universities using an integrated perspective The

results of the survey showed that, lecturers mainly used “Intradisciplinary” and

“Integrating/combining” Lecturers used a combination of a number of positive teaching

methods, teaching techniques However, lecturers still mainly used traditional teaching

methods, the main teaching organization used is “Teaching in class”, the form of assessment

is not diverse Based on findings, we propose solutions to improve the effectiveness of teaching this module at universities of education, contributing to the training of future teachers who are able to work independently, creatively, to conduct scientific research, and

to adapt quickly to constant changes in educational practice

Keywords: Status of teaching, teaching using an integrated perspective, educational scientific

research methods, students in educational universities.

Scientific research in general and educational scientific research in particular are considered the theoretical foundation for educational reforms and decisions The Resolution of the 8th Plenums of the 11th Party Central Committee on fundamental and comprehensive innovation in

education and training clearly stated: “Improving the quality and effectiveness of scientific and technological research and application, especially educational science and management science”, as well as specified one of the innovative tasks and solutions is “Strengthening the capacity, improving the quality and effectiveness of scientific research, technology transfer of higher education institutions Closely linking training and research, between training institutions and production and business establishments Prioritizing investment in the development of basic sciences, spearhead sciences, key laboratories, specialized laboratories, hi-tech centers, and modern test production establishments in a number of higher education institutions Adopting policies to encourage pupils and students to participate in scientific research” [1] Nguyen Canh

Toan (2001) also emphasized in the importance of scientific research in general and educational scientific research in particular for educational universities, especially confirmed the responsibility of the lecturers at universities to inspire students to exercise, explore and research [2] In the national education system, educational universities have an important task to organize training and develop the capacity of educational scientific research, create a scientific environment Received April 13, 2020 Revised April 21, 2020 Accepted May 14 2020

Contact: Pham Thi Dieu Thuy, e-mail address: thuyptd@hnue.edu.vn

for learners to have enough qualifications and skills, access to new educational programs Students’ learning and research activities are a decisive condition for the process of formation and personality development of teachers in the future Therefore, innovation in teaching in general and in teaching module ESRM in particular is one of the urgent measures to contribute to improving the capacity of self-study and scientific research capacity for students of educational universities, helping to train the generation of teachers who meet the output standards of educational universities According to Xavier Roegers (1996), the goal of integrated teaching is

to “make learning processes not isolated from everyday life to ensure that each student has the ability to effectively mobilize knowledge and ability to effectively deal with a situation that appears, and if possible, to face an unexpected difficulty, an unprecedented situation” [3]

Integrated teaching is a pedagogical perpective in which learners need to mobilize all resources

to solve a complex and problematic situation in order to develop individual competencies and qualities [4] In an integrated teaching process, teaching activities, knowledge, skills and attitudes

of learners are integrated together in the same content based on practical situations, professional activities to shape and develop capacity for learners [5] Especially, integrated thematic learning can improve the motivation and competence of learners and integrated learning can occur in events around the students life [6] The collection of information and analysis of the status of teaching module ESRM for students of educational universities from integrated perspective in the current period will contribute to building a practical basis and propose feasible measures to guide lecturers in the process of organizing integrated teaching activities

2.1 Research methods

The survey was conducted on 77 managers and lecturers, of which 53 lecturers took part in

teaching ESRM at 11 universities of education These universities include Hanoi National

University of Education, VNU University of Education, Thai Nguyen University of Education, Hai Phong University, Ha Long University, Vinh University, Hue University of Education, Da Nang University of Education, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Can Tho University and Vinh Long University of Technology Education and 816 students of 6 universities including Hanoi National University of Education, Thai Nguyen University of Education, Da Nang University of Education, Can Tho University and Ho Chi Minh City University of Education

To carry out the research on the mentioned situation, we used a mixed research approach Research method included: Interviews, classroom observation, Anket questionnaire, we used SPSS 22.0 statistical software to analyze the data We designed two questionnaires, one for managers and lecturers and one for students of educational universities Two questionnaires for managers, lecturers and students were assessed by the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient

Rating scale: For questions using a 5-level Likert scale, we used a range of average values

and the corresponding level of evaluation as follows [7]:

Average value range The corresponding rating level

1.00 – 1.80 Unnecessary / Unimportant / Never / Very low impact / Poor

1.81 – 2.60 Less Needed / Less Important / Rarely / Low Impact / Weak

2.61 – 3.40 Normal / Occasional / Relatively Effective / Moderate

3.41 – 4.20 Needed / Important / Regular / High impact/ Fair

4.21 – 5.00 Very necessary / Very important / Very often / Very high impact /

Good

2.2 Research results

2.2.1 The status of integrated teaching at educational universities

To find out the situation of integrated teaching in educational universities, we asked the

question “To what extent you implement integrated teaching in your teaching process?” for 77

managers and lecturers in the survey area The results showed that 13/77 lecturers (accounting for

16.9%) answered that they were “very regular” and 44/77 lecturers (accounting for 57.1%) answered that they “often” conducted integrated teaching in the teaching process; 20/77 lecturers (corresponding to 26.0%) responded to the “Occasional” level, with no idea of choosing the

“Rarely” and “Never” levels The average value of the teacher's choices in this question is 𝑋̅ = 3.91, which shows that the lecturers of educational universities conducted integrated teaching at

a “Regular” level in their teaching Thus, lecturers in the survey area have implemented integrated

teaching and appreciated the role of integrated teaching in the teaching process at educational universities

Table 1 Integrated forms used in the teaching process

by the lecturers of educational universities

No Integrated forms Rating level (%) 𝑿̅ SD Rank

2 Integrating/Combining 0.0 13.0 16.9 64.9 5.2 3.62 0.779 2

3 Multidisciplinary 1.3 31.2 40.3 20.8 6.5 3.00 0.918 5

4 Interdisciplinary 1.3 18.2 31.2 45.5 3.9 3.32 0.865 4

5 Grouped by integrated

6 Transdisciplinary 10.4 28.6 40.3 16.9 3.9 2.75 0.989 6

Notes: 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasional; 4 = Regular; 5 = Very regular

Table 1 shows the integrated forms used by educational universities’ lecturers in the teaching

process In particular, the form of “Intradisciplinary” is used by lecturers at the most level with

𝑋̅ = 3.78, SD = 0.772 (at the first rank) and followed by the form of “Integrating/combining” with

𝑋̅ = 3.62, SD = 0.779 (rank 2), “Grouped by integrated topics” with 𝑋̅ = 3.45, SD = 0.787 (rank

3) The least used form is “Transdisciplinary” with 𝑋̅ = 2.75, SD = 0.989 (ranked at 6th) As such, lectures of educational universities have used integrated teaching in their teaching process but mostly in the form of integration within the subject knowledge or integrating/combining related knowledge with the subject they are teaching

2.2.2 The status of teaching Educational scientific research methods for students of educational universities from integrated perspective

Evaluation of managers and lecturers on the necessity of teaching module ESRM for students

of educational universities from integrated perspective shows that there were 40/77 managers and

lecturers (accounting for 51.9%) who assessed that teaching ESRM for students in educational universities using integrated perspective is “Very necessary”; 34/77 reviews (accounting for 44.2%) rated it “necessary” and only 3 reviews (corresponding to 3.9%) chose the “Normal” level, no review selected the “Less Necessary” level and “Unnecessary” level The average value

of the reviews in this question is 𝑋̅ = 4.48, which shows that managers and lecturers of educational universities evaluated the implementation of teaching this module from integrated

perspective at “Very necessary" level

Integrated form used most by lectures of educational universities in the teaching process of

ESRM is the form “Endocrine integration” with 𝑋̅ = 3.72, SD = 0.662 (1st rank, level “Regular”)

and form “Integrating/combining” with 𝑋̅ = 3.34, SD = 0.898 (2nd rank, level “Occasionally”) The form “Grouped by integrated topics” is used at the level “Occasionally” with 𝑋̅ = 3.25, SD

= 0.806 (ranked at 3rd) The least commonly used form of integration is “Transdisciplinary” with 𝑋̅ = 2.42, SD = 1,027 (ranked at 6th, the “Rarely” level) Thus, in teaching ESRM from integrated

perspective, lecturers at educational universities have used the integrated forms within the subject

knowledge or integrating/combining related knowledge with the ESRM module

To learn more about what content of the module ESRM was taught by the lecturers from

integrated perspective and what knowledge or modules have been integrated with the content of the module, we asked question 10 in the questionnaire for lecturers Results are shown in Tables

2 and 3 below

Table 2 Contents of ESRM which can be taught by lecturers using an integrated perspective

2 Within the section “General foundations of educational

3 Within the section “Identify educational scientific research

topic and build a theoretical basis for the research topic” 29 54.7 2

4 Within the section “Methods of educational scientific

5 Within section “Process of implementing an educational

8 Only in the difficult knowledge, highly applicable 10 18.9 6

Table 2 shows that the content selected by the lecturers to integrate the most is “Methods of educational scientific research” with 37/53 selected ideas (accounting for 69.8%, ranked at 1st),

The next section is “Identify educational scientific research topic and build a theoretical basis for the research topic” with 29/53 selected ideas (accounting for 54.7%, ranked at 2nd) and the

section “Process of implementing an educational scientific research project” with 26/53 selected

ideas (accounting for 49.1%, ranked at 3rd) There are 16/52 (corresponding to 30.2%) lecturers

that chose the answers “Only integrated in some possible lessons" and 10/53 (corresponding to 18.9%) that chose the answer "Only integrated in the difficult knowledge, highly applicable”; only 2/53 lecturers (accounting for 3.8%) answered “Never done” As such, most lecturers have

conducted integrated teaching in areas that require the ability to mobilize the combined knowledge and skills of fields related to educational science as well as self-study, ability to work independently and creatively of students as the content of the methods of educational scientific research, how to identify an educational scientific research project, build a theoretical basis for a research topic and the steps to implement a research topic in the field of educational science

Table 3 Contents of knowledge or modules have been integrated with the content of module

ESRM for educational universities’ students

5 Probability and Statistics 39 73.6 3 380 46.6 3

6 Statistical software (SPSS, excel, etc.) 33 62.3 4 343 42.0 4 Table 3 shows the contents of knowledge or modules that the lecturers have integrated with

the content of ESRM In particular, the content of knowledge in the module used by the lecturers

to integrate most is Pedagogy with the selection of 47/53 lecturers (accounting for 88.7%, ranked

at 1st) and 634 / 816 students (accounting for 77.7%, ranked at 1st); followed by Psychology with

the choice of 45/53 lecturers (accounting for 84.9%, ranked at 2nd) and 535/816 students (65.6%, ranked at 2nd) The next knowledge contents are Probability and Statistics (with 39/53 lecturers

accounting for 73.6% and 380/816 students accounting for 46.6%, ranking at 3rd), SPSS statistical software , Excel… (with 33/53 lecturers accounting for 62.3% and 343/816 students accounting

for 42.0%, ranked at 4th), Logic (with 30/53 lecturers accounting for 56.6% and 304/816 students

accounting for 37.3%, ranked at 5th) and Philosophy (with 20/53 lecturers accounting for 37.7% and 224/816 students accounting for 27.5%, ranked at 6th)

Table 4 Teaching methods used in teaching ESRM for educational universities’ students

using an integrated perspective

Data from Table 4 shows that teaching methods that lecturers self-assess using at the

“Regular” level when conducting teaching of ESRM using an integrated perspective are “Group discussion” (ranked 1st), “Training and practice method” (ranked 2nd), “Problem solving” (ranked

3rd), “Question and answer teaching" (ranked 4th), “Presentation” (ranked 5th) and “Teaching through scientific research” (ranked 6th) The methods that lecturers self-assess using at the

“Occasional” level are “Visual” (ranked 7th), “Situational teaching” (ranked 8th), “Project-based teaching” (ranked 9th) and “Differentiated teaching” (ranked 10th) The methods that self-assessed

by lecturers at the “Rarely” level are: “WebQuest teaching” (ranked 11th), “Gaming method”

(ranked 12th), “Role playing method” (ranked 13th) and “Contract teaching” (ranked 14th)

Students’ assessment of the teaching methods that lecturers used in teaching ESRM using an integrated perspective are as follows: The teaching methods that lecturers used at the “Regular” level is “Problem solving” (ranked first), “Group discussion” (ranked second), “Training and practice methods” (ranked third), “Presentation” (ranked fourth) and “Question and answer teaching” (ranked fifth); The teaching methods that lecturers used at the “Occasional” level are

“Visual” (ranked 6th), “Situational teaching" (ranked 7th), “Teaching through scientific research”

(ranked 8th) and “Gaming method” (ranked 9th); The teaching methods that lecturers used at the

𝑿̅ SD Rank 𝑿̅ SD Rank

2 Question and answer teaching 3.74 0.625 4 3.65 0.836 5

4 Training and practice method 4.11 0.640 2 3.79 0.784 3

10 WebQuest Teaching - discover online 2.60 1.007 11 2.23 1.106 12

11 Teaching through scientific research 3.53 0.749 6 2.82 1.126 8

Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient R = 0.916**

“Rarely” level are “Project-based teaching” (ranked 10th), “Role-playing method” (ranked 11th),

“WebQuest Teaching - discover online” (ranked 12th), “Differentiated teaching” (ranked 13th)

and “Contract teaching” (ranked 14th)

Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient R = 0.916 with Sig = 0.000 <0.01 shows that there

is a high degree of agreement between lecturers and students about the teaching methods that the

lecturers used in the teaching process of ESRM using an integrated perspective The above results show that, when carrying out teaching ESRM using an integrated perspective, lecturers of educational universities still used at the “regular” level of traditional teaching methods such as

“Presentation”, “Question and answer teaching” and “Training and practice methods” Besides, lecturers have used some positive teaching methods at a “regular” level, such as “Group discussion”, “Solving problems” and “Teaching through scientific research”

Table 5 Teaching techniques used in teaching ESRM for educational universities’ students

using an integrated perspective

Table 5 shows the status of the use of teaching techniques in the course of teaching module

ESRM using an integrated perspective of lecturers at educational universities The above data shows that only two teaching techniques that lecturers self-assess using at the “Regular” level are

“Task assignment technique” (𝑋̅ = 3.64, SD = 1.002, ranked 1st) and “Summary of document content in groups” (𝑋̅ = 3.58, SD = 0.989, ranked 2nd); There are 8 teaching techniques that

lecturers evaluate to use at the “Occasional” level, respectively, “Mind map” (ranked 3rd),

“Sharing in pair technique" (ranked 4th), “Argument for support and opposition" (ranked 5th),

“Feedback technique in teaching process” (ranked 6th), “Tablecloth technique” (ranked 7th), “Fish tank technique” (ranked 8th), “Puzzle pieces technique” (ranked 9th), “5W1H technique” (ranked

10th); There are 6 teaching techniques that lecturers evaluate to use at the level of “Rarely” that are “XYZ technique” (ranked 11th), “Art gallery Technique” (ranked 14th), “3 times 3 technique”(ranked 15th) and “Ball bearing technique” (ranked 16th)

Assessment of students on teaching techniques used by lecturers in the course of teaching

module ESRM using an integrated perspective is as follows: 6 teaching techniques are evaluated

at the level of “Occasionally” respectively, “Task assignment technique” (𝑋̅ = 3.35, SD = 1,129,

ranked 1st), “Summary of document content in groups” (𝑋̅ = 3.18, SD = 1,182, ranked 2sd),

𝑿̅ SD Rank 𝑿̅ SD Rank

13 Argument for support and opposition 3.21 1.063 5 2.99 1.135 4

14 Feedback technique in teaching process 3.15 1.099 6 2.67 1.154 6

16 Summary of document content in groups 3.58 0.989 2 3.18 1.182 2

Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient R = 0.923**

“Sharing in pair technique” (𝑋̅ = 3.07, SD = 1.205, rank 3), “Argument for support and opposition” (ranked 4th), “Mind map” (ranked 5th) and “Feedback technique in teaching process"

(ranked 6th); there are 10 teaching techniques that students evaluate lecturers to use at the level of

“Rarely” that is “Tablecloth technique” (ranked 7th), “Puzzle pieces technique” (ranked 8th),

“5W1H technique” (ranked 9th), “Lightning technique” (ranked 10th), “Fish tank technique”, “XYZ technique” and “3 times 3 technique” (same 11th rank) , “Art gallery technique” (ranked 14th),

“KWL-KWLH technique” (ranked 15th) and “Ball bearing technique” (ranked 16th)

Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient R = 0.923 with Sig = 0.000 < 0.01, it shows that there

is a very high agreement between the lecturers and the students’ assessment of the teaching

techniques that the lectures used in the process of teaching ESRM using an integrated perspective

at educational universities Thus, lecturers have used positive teaching techniques in the process

of teaching module ESRM using an integrated perspective However, most teaching techniques are still used at the “Occasional” and “Rarely” levels Compared with the use of teaching

methods, the use of teaching techniques by lecturers when carrying out teaching module using an integrated perspective is still at a lower level and frequency

Table 6 Organizational forms of teaching module ESRM for educational universities’

students using an integrated perspective

Table 6 shows that the organizational form of teaching used by lecturers at the most level in

the process of teaching ESRM using an integrated perspective is “Teaching in class” (𝑋̅ = 4.30,

SD = 0.607 according to lectures’ self-assessment; 𝑋̅ = 4.47, SD = 0.654 according to students'

assessment, ranked at level 1, at “Very regular” level), followed by “Teaching in groups method"

(𝑋̅ = 4.08, SD = 0.583 according to the lecturers’ self-assessment; 𝑋̅ = 3.77, SD = 0.954

according to the students' assessment, ranked 2nd, at the “Regular” level) The form of

“Extracurricular activities” is the least used by lecturers (𝑋̅ = 2.53, SD = 0.890 according to the

lecturers’ self-assessment; 𝑋̅ = 2.55, SD = 1,110 according to the students’ assessment, ranked

5th, at the “Rarely” level) Table 6 also shows that the evaluation of lecturers and students is

highly compatible Compared with the organizational forms of teaching when lecturers taught this section in general, when teaching based on an integrated perspective, lecturers tend to reduce the time of teaching in the classroom and increase the time self-study at home, seminars, discussion and teaching in groups

The forms of assessment used by lecturers when teaching module ESRM using in integrated

perspective are shown in Table 7 The data shows that there are 4 forms of assessment that are

used by lecturers that both lectures and students assessed at “Regular” level There are “Writing test (multiple choice, essay)” (𝑋̅ = 3.47, SD = 0.890 according to the lecturers’ self-assessment,

ranked fourth; 𝑋̅ = 3.97, SD = 0.846 according to students’ assessment, ranked 1st), “Product-written material (essay)” (𝑋̅ = 3.66, SD = 0.876 according to the self-assessment of lecturers and 𝑋̅ = 3.46, SD = 1,059 according to the assessment of the students, the same rank 2), “Practical test” (𝑋̅ = 3.87, SD = 0.785, ranked 1st according to the lecturers' self-assessment; 𝑋̅ = 3.46, SD

= 0.981, ranked 2nd, according to the students’ assessment) and “Assessment through discussion”

(𝑋̅ = 3.62, SD = 0.837, ranked 3rd according to the lecturers' self-assessment; 𝑋̅ = 3.62, SD =

No Organizational forms of teaching Lecturers Students

2 Extracurricular activities 2.53 0.890 5 2.55 1.110 5

0.992, ranked at 4th according to the students’ assessment) Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient

R = 0.884 with Sig = 0.000 <0.01, it shows that there is a very high agreement between the lecturers and the students’ assessment of the forms of assessment that the lectures used in the

process of teaching ESRM using an integrated perspective at educational universities

Table 7 Assessment forms in teaching ESRM for educational universities’ students

using an integrated perspective

In order to learn about the level of interest in learning and the level of awareness students

gained when participating in learning ESRM using integrated perspective, we asked some survey

questions and conducted in-depth interviews some students of educational universities The

results showed that 96/816 students, accounting for 11.8%, said that they were “Very active and self-conscious” when participating in learning ESRM module which was taught using an integrated perspective; 8/53 lecturers, accounting for 10.4%, said that their students were “Very active and self-conscious” when participating in lessons that were taught based on integrated perspective; 385/816 students accounting for 47.2% said that they are “Positive, self-conscious” and 36/53 lecturers accounting for 46.8% said that their students are “Positive, self-conscious”

when participating in the study Meanwhile, only 58/816 students (corresponding to 7.1%)

answered that they were “Not really positive” and 14/816 students (corresponding to 1.7%) answered that they were “Not positive”, and only 3/53 lecturers (corresponding to 3.9%) said that their students were “Not really positive” and 1/53 teachers (1.3%) said that their students were

“Not positive” when participating in the study Thus, most students are interested and show the

positive, self-conscious when learning the integrated lessons that lecturers have designed

Table 8 The status of applying integrated knowledge to participate in scientific research

activities of educational universities’ students

No

Forms of

participation

in scientific

research

Regions Academic year of students

General North Middle South Second Third Fourth

f % f % f % f % f % f % f %

1 Participate in

scientific

research for

students at the

department

level

67 26.0 43 13.4 26 11.0 14 10.5 47 15.7 75 19.6 136 16.7

2 Participate in

scientific

research for

15 5.8 28 8.7 13 5.5 11 8.3 16 5.3 29 7.6 56 6.9

𝑿̅ SD Rank 𝑿̅ SD Rank

1 Writing test (multiple choice, essay) 3.47 0.890 4 3.97 0.846 1

6 Assessment through discussion 3.62 0.837 3 3.45 0.992 4

7 Products-written material (essay) 3.66 0.876 2 3.46 1.059 2

11 Assessment by criteria (Rubric) 3.11 1.013 7 2.56 1.154 10

12 Assessment through observation 3.21 0.968 6 3.10 1.103 6 Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient R = 0.884**

students at the

university level

3 Participate in

scientific

research

projects with

lecturers

30 11.6 26 8.1 18 7.6 12 9.0 24 8.0 38 9.9 74 9.1

4 Never

participate in

scientific

research

160 62.0 227 70.7 188 79.3 98 73.7 215 71.7 262 68.4 575 70.5

Table 8 shows the current situation of applying integrated knowledge to participate in scientific research activities of educational universities’ students The data showed that 136/816

students (corresponding to 16.7%) answered that they had “participated in scientific research students at the department level”, and 56/816 students (corresponding to 6.9%) said that they had

“participated in scientific research at university level”, there are 74/816 students (corresponding

to 9.1%) who have “participated in scientific research projects with lecturers” and up to 575/816 students, accounting for 70.5%, said that they have “never participated in scientific research”

From the above results it can be seen that, although students have initially applied the integrated knowledge learned to participate in scientific research activities, this rate is not high and many students have never applied the knowledge that they have learned in practical research In terms

of regional factor, students of Northern educational universities have higher participation rates in scientific research than students of universities in the Central and Southern regions Considering the factor of the academic year, students in the fourth year have higher participation rates in scientific research than students in the second and third years

Table 9 The level of awareness students achieved when studying ESRM

from integrated perspective

Table 9 shows the assessment of the lecturers and self-assessment of students on the level of awareness according to the Bloom’s Taxonomy that students have achieved when studying ESRM from integrated perspective According to the lecturers’ assessment and self-assessment of

students, students achieved “Good” at three cognitive levels as “Remember” (𝑋̅ = 3.96, SD =

0.649 according to the lecturers’ assessment and 𝑋̅ = 4.09, SD = 0.683 according to the self-assessment of the students, ranked at 1st), “Understand” (𝑋̅ = 3.94, SD = 0.633 according to the

lecturers’ assessment and 𝑋̅ = 3.92, SD = 0.691 according to the students' self-assessment, the

same rank 2) and “Apply” (𝑋̅ = 3.51, SD = 0.639 according to the lecturers’ assessment and 𝑋̅ =

3.62, SD = 0.733 according to the students’ self-assessment, with the same rank 3) At the same

time, teachers and students rated the students to achieve “Average” at three levels of “Analyze”

(𝑋̅ = 3.34, SD = 0.706 according to the lecturers and 𝑋̅ = 3.40, SD = 0.687 by self-assessment

of the students, with the fourth rank), “Evaluate” (𝑋̅ = 3.23, SD = 0.800 according to the

lecturers’ assessment and 𝑋̅ = 3.37, SD = 0.733 according to the students’ self-assessment,

together ranked 5th) and “Create” (𝑋̅ = 3.08, SD = 0.756 according to the lecturers and 𝑋̅ =

3.13, SD = 0.812 according to the students’ self-assessment, ranked at 6th)

2.2.3 Difficulties in the process of teaching and learning Educational scientific research methods from integrated perspective

Table 10 below shows the difficulties faced by educational universities’ lecturers when

teaching ESRM using an integrated perspective 33 out of 53 lecturers (62.3%) considered

“Students still lack specialized knowledge” when studying this module was their most challenge

In most of the training programs, ESRM is taught in the second year, even in some training

programs, this module is taught in the first year, a few in the third or fourth year Therefore, many lecturers thought that learning this module right from the first or second year will encounter difficulties in teaching because students are still lacking in specialized knowledge While the module itself, especially when it comes to integrated teaching, requires the combined mobilization

of many specialized and interdisciplinary knowledge to achieve the goals that this module has set

The difficulty that ranked at the second place chosen by lecturers is the “Reviewing of the module curriculum to select integrated teaching content/topics” with 32/53 ideas accounting for 60.4%

Most teachers think that in order to select the integrated teaching content/topics, reviewing the curriculum, as well as its connection with other subjects in the training program will take a lot of effort It is necessary to have the coordination of lecturers who take part in teaching other related modules to be able to choose the integrated content/topics, as well as the time for internal teaching this integrated content/topic in the most reasonable and effective way Besides, there are 24/53

teachers, accounting for 45.3% (ranked in the third rank), said that “The source of integrated teaching is limited” Lecturers mainly search for integrated teaching materials themselves through

training materials, reference books, newspapers, magazines, and the internet Lecturers think that there are still quite a few seminars, conferences and training courses on integrated teaching organized for lecturers of universities of education The next difficulties related to the stages of

preparation and the organization of integrated teaching in turn are “Defining objectives of integrated lesson”, “The lack of facilities and equipment for integrated teaching”, “Teaching time is not enough to organize integrated teaching” (21/53 corresponds to 39.6%, ranked fourth);

“Determining the competencies that need to be formulated for the students”, “Designing the integrated teaching situations” (18/53 corresponds to 34.0%, ranked 7th together); “Planning integrated lecture”, “Selecting methods, techniques, forms of integrated teaching organization”

(17/53, respectively 32.1%, ranked 9th); “Managing classroom activities”, “Teachers themselves

do not fully understand about integrated teaching”, “Students are not interested in integrated teaching form” (13/53, respectively 24.5%, ranked 11th together) and “Selecting the form of inspection and evaluation” (11/53 corresponding to 20.8%, ranked 14th)

Table 10 Difficulties faced by lecturers when teaching ESRM from integrated perspective

1 Reviewing of the module curriculum to select integrated teaching

3 Determining the competencies that need to be formulated for the students 18 34.0 7

6 Selecting methods, techniques, forms of integrated teaching organization 17 32.1 9

7 Selecting the forms of inspection and evaluation 11 20.8 14

9 The lack of facilities and equipment for integrated teaching 21 39.6 4

10 Teaching time is not enough to organize integrated teaching 21 39.6 4

11 Lecturers themselves do not fully understand about integrated teaching 13 24.5 11