Leveraging Virtual Learning Environment to Scale

Up Quality Teaching and Learning in Malaysia

Soon Seng Thah

Educational Technology Division Ministry of Education, Malaysia

Received Review Accepted

Abstract
Malaysia is currently implementing the use ofthe Frog Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in allgovernment schools in
the country. This paperoutlines the basis for introducing the VLE inleveraging teaching and learning in
Malaysianschools. It discusses the state of current literatureassociated with the use of VLE. In addition, itarticulates the
need for programme evaluation as ameans for decision-makers to plan and takenecessary corrective action to better
implementVLE among teachers and students in schools. Tosustain the implementation of this endeavour, amonitoring
and evaluation mechanism must be putin place. This would determine how the VLE isperforming and ascertain key
success factors withthe use of the Frog VLE among teachers andstudents. For this purpose, a survey research
wasundertaken using a sample comprising 426 teachersand 223 students from primary and secondaryschools
throughout the country. Reliabilitycomputations show Cronbach alpha values greaterthan .90 for the various constructs
in the scaleditems of the teachers’ and students’ questionnaires.The key findings of the study show
significantlydifferent perceptions (p < .05) in the use of FrogVLE as a learning tool between primary pupils
andsecondary students with significantly higherperceptions from secondary students on all aspectsranging from ease
of use of Frog VLE to usingFrog VLE as a collaborative tool for interactionwithin and outside the classroom. Factor
analysisvia the Principal Component Analysis methodshows 3 critical success factors cited by teachers inthe use of Frog
VLE. The first factor concerns thefunctionality of VLE as a pedagogical tool; thesecond is associated with the user-
friendliness ofthe VLE; and the third concerns the VLE as a toolfor collaboration. An analysis of ranks derived fromthe
mean computations of the variables within thefirst factor shows the VLE provides a platform forteachers to share ideas
and opinions being rankedfirst. This is followed by VLE being used bystudents to obtain learning materials, which
isranked second. Third, the VLE being used byteachers to source for new teaching materials.Other major findings
include issues associated withslow and unstable internet connectivity wheresecondary schools fared worse compared
toprimary schools and that rural schools tended tohave more problems in connectivity as compared tourban schools.
This paper puts forth a propositionthat educational technology needs continuousmonitoring and evaluation and
effective changemanagement is imperative to attain success in itsimplementation.

Key Words :

1. Introduction
Malaysia introduced the 1BestariNet initiative in 2012 to leapfrog technology-based teaching and learning
in sync with the needs of 21st century knowledge and skills. 1BestariNet comprises three components: i.
broadband connectivity, ii. Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), and iii. management. Under the broadband
connectivity component, all schools are provided with either broadband access of between 2 to 4 Mbps
using VSAT technology or between 4 to 10 Mbps via 4G technology. VSAT technology schools are mostly
located in rural areas while 4G technology schools are located in urban and sub-urban areas. On the other
hand, the virtual learning environment is provided for all schools through the use of Frog VLE. Every
head teacher/principal, teacher, student and parent in Malaysia is provided with an ID to access Frog
VLE. The third component, i.e. management concerns the setting up of a project management office
entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the 1BestariNet initiative as a whole.

2. The 1BestariNet Initiative

The need to undertake a quantum leap in Malaysia’s education system necessitates a paradigm shift in the
approaches towards teaching and learning. The Malaysia Education Policy Review conducted by UNESCO
(2012) noted the following: “Malaysia is in fact lagging behind in this area (ICT in education) in comparison
to many other economies in the region (e.g. Singapore, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong SAR) even
in terms of student : computer ratio. The ICT infrastructure standard for schools has not improved since the
launch of the Smart School programme (program). In fact the situation for many of the early starters have
(has) become worse because of the aging equipment. Further, most of the cases have not gone
much beyond the use of ICT as an instructional tool, using programs such as PowerPoint. There is little
evidence that ICT is being used to foster students’ creativity, problem solving, critical thinking and
communication skills.” p.105 Revisions needed above, but since this is a quotation taken from another
source, I am unclear if the errors are a part of the original document, or were made by the article
author. Against this evidence, MOE Malaysia incorporated ICT in Education under Shift 7 in the Malaysia
Education Blueprint, 2013 – 2025 (2013). Shift 7 emphasises on leveraging ICT to scale up quality learning
across all 10,000 schools in the country by providing internet access and a virtual learning environment via
the 1BestariNet Initiative. This would augment online content to share the best materials, starting with a
video library of the best teachers delivering lessons in science, mathematics, Bahasa Malaysia and the
English language. This shift also entails maximising the use of ICT for distance and self-paced learning to
expand access to high quality teaching regardless of location or student level.

3. Broadband Connectivity to Schools

The Ministry of Education initiated broadband connectivity to all schools prior to the implementation of
1BestariNet. However, most of these schools were provided with 1 Mbps broadband connectivity. Having a
low-level broadband connectivity was not ideal for technology-driven teaching and learning,hence the
need for better broadband internet connectivity to leverage teaching and learning via ICT. It is with this in
mind that the MOE felt the need to implement a national programme to connect all schools with fast
internet access to address issues related to access, equity, and quality education. By providing all schools,
whether urban, rural or interior, with high-speed internet access, this will lead to narrowing of the digital
divide and bringing rural and interior schools to be on par with their urban counterparts. This will address
the issue of access to digital services and ensuring equity in educational opportunities between the rural-
urban schools. In this respect, MOE hopes to provide quality education in all schools irrespective of
location. Under the 1BestariNet initiative, a major challenge is to provide the necessary
broadband infrastructure to all schools. While urban schools are definitely easier to develop as they have
better accessibility to good physical infrastructure, the rural schools are frequently more difficult to develop
due to their isolation and, in certain circumstances, the extreme lack of telecommunication infrastructure.
The issue is how can the MOE bring about equittable development in both rural and urban schools?
The solution lies in using VSAT technology in rural schools and 4G technology in urban and sub-
urban schools. While VSAT technology has certain limitations, such as the need for a
configured contention-ratio in terms of accessibility, 4G schools can only be provided when there is a good
fibre backhaul and availability of a sufficient number of transmission towers to ensure sufficient
broadband coverage in these schools. In Malaysia, the construction of transmission towers, in some
cases, faced objections from the community and schools. In addition, the cost of building a sufficient
number of towers is high. There is a need for systematic planning to take place at the central level and
appointment of a vendor to undertake a coordinated planning effort towards realising the objective of
ensuring quick internet connectivity in all schools. At the moment, approximately 90% of schools in the
country have been provided with Customer Premise Equipment to allow school administrators, teachers,
students and parents to access the VLE.

4. The Frog Virtual Learning Environment

The virtual learning environment under the 1BestariNet Initiative uses Frog VLE as a teaching and learning
platform in government schools. Frog VLE was chosen for its proven ability in leveraging teaching and
learning among teachers and students in many countries, specifically the United Kingdom. In addition,
students can learn collaboratively and effectively within the virtual learning evironment. Frog VLE brings
this collaborative learning environment one step further by involving parents to participate directly in the
educational pursuits of their children. The Frog VLE (Frog Asia, 2014) is a web-based learning system that
replicates real-world learning by integrating virtual equivalents of conventional concepts of education. For
example, teachers can assign lessons, tests, and marks virtually, while students can submit homework and
view their marks through the VLE. Parents can view school news and important documents while school
administrators can organise their school calendars and disseminate school notices via the
Internet. According to Wikipedia (2014), “a virtual learning environment, or learning platform, is an
elearning education system based on the web that models conventional in-person education by
providing equivalent virtual access to classes, class content, tests, homework, grades, assessments, and
other external resources such as academic or museum website links. It is also a social space where students
and teachers interact through threaded discussions or chat.” Through a VLE, virtual learning can take
place synchronously or asynchronously i.e. in synchronous systems, participants meet in “real time” and
teachers conduct live classes in virtual classrooms. Learning virtually is a key to ensuring no child is left
behind. MOE Malaysia is of the opinion that schools must be provided with a VLE to enable learning to
take place anywhere and anytime in line with the concept of ubiquitous learning. The virtual learning
environment must be able to take cognisance of this ubiquitous paradigm and provide the
necessary driving force for effective instruction to take place –that’s paramount in ensuring access, equity
and quality education, the cardinal principles enshrined in the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013 – 2025.
To facilitate ubiquitous learning, there must be sufficient mobile devices and for this reason MOE Malaysia
is providing Mobile Labs for both primary and secondary schools via the Chromebook
programme. Chromebooks being portable and linked to the internet can be used as a repository of
knowledge where teachers and students are able to get that knowledge via Frog VLE.

5. Literature on Virtual Learning Environment in Teaching

and Learning
The currrent literature review points to the VLE as being a tool with multifarious applications in teaching
and learning. Hanna (2003) describes the impact of the Internet and virtual learning on distance education
as follows: “The development and deployment of the Internet has radically altered the
technological environment for distance learning, opening up many new possibilities for connecting
learners and teachers. The Internet has enabled an efficient way of distributing information and sharing
knowledge globally, which has led to virtual interactions among people. The interactions first began with
simple e-mail, added power with the growth of listservs?, and have since evolved into numerous strategies
for creating powerful new opportunities for online interaction. [...], there is little disagreement that its arrival
has opened up many new possibilities for delivering education.” pp. 73-74 Volery & Lord (2000) stated that
this technological progression serves as a means for interactive learning where course materials are more
widely and effectively distributed. Researchers further believe that the current method of online learning
easily brings participants together as a networked community through the use of the Internet and
multiple technologies, thereby enhancing interaction with course content and communication with fellow
class members. Wilson (1996) described the online learning environment as a relatively open system that
facilitates access to resources and encounters with other participants. In addition, learners can access
content on their own time and follow different paths to get through the academic materials, and online
learning extends the ability for participants to communicate through interactions and discussions (Bouhnik
& Marcus, 2006). Amongst the many benefits cited by researchers, a major reason for the growth in virtual
learning has been due to its ability to transcend the boundaries of time and place. Students have the
benefit of retrieving learning materials at their convenience in terms of when, where, which content, and
how much (Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006; Liaw, 2007). Virtual learning is no longer an individual endeavour as
the learner takes advantage of the widely available network infrastructure to leverage the many-to-
many relations among learners and with instructors (Piccoli, Ahmad & Ives, 2001). Virtual learning allows
students to have more time to reflect on the materials at hand and collect their thoughts (King, 2002). This
makes discussions more succinct and focused, with opportunities to collaborate and easily share
information (Capper, 2001). According to Naidu (2003), students in online learning and other flexible
learning environments often work independently with self-instructional study materials. A major
characteristic of virtual learning environment is that it follows the Self-Directed Learning (SDL) Process
Model. SDL originated from the research of John Dewey, focusing on the experience of the learner. SDL is
a learning process where students develop skills to take ownership of their learning activities. The
distinguishing characteristic of SDL is that students play a significant role and accountability for their own
learning. SDL serves as a means to illustrate the phases of learning activities thereby facilitating an active
learning process that improves self-management and self-monitoring of activities to meet individual
learning goals. Kim (2010) puts forth a theroretical model of virtual learning via a number of phases. The
first phase,known as “establishing learning goals”, involves the learner identifying what he or she hopes to
accomplish from a given learning experience and their participation in a course. The learner's goals
may include earning a good grade, mastering course content, and learning information relevant to
one's career goals. The second phase is known as “locating and accessing resources” – this phase involves
the student identifying what resources he or she may need, and accessing them for use as part of the
learning activity. Resources may include textbooks, learning materials from the instructor, the Internet, the
library, online discussions with peers, and interactions with the instructor. The third phase, called “adopt
and executing learning acitivities” involves the student deciding on a specific plan of action that is
aligned with the established goals and use of available resources. The fourth phase, called “monitoring
and evaluating performance” entails the student tracking and measuring actual performance of results
to previously established learning goals. The fifth and last phase is called “reassessing learning strategies”
and involves the learner self-reflecting and re-examining the various phases completed to determine ways
in which the student can improve his or her learning experience. Kim’s five-phase process can be seen
as an interactive flow of activities to fit the learner's needs. The primary concept of the model is based on
research findings that students must be proactive in managing their learning processes rather than wait for
learning to be passed on by the instructor. The literature on the role of parents in fostering learning via VLE
varies. Henderson & Mapp (2002) assert that parental involvement has “a myriad of stellar outcomes,
including greater standardized test scores, higher grades, better attendance, improved social skills and a
greater likelihood of admission to postsecondary institutions.” p. 9 Strom & Strom (2003) highlight the role
of parents within the context of home-school communications, i.e. “when parents and teachers fulfill
complimentary roles, they can improve student social development and academic achievement.” p. 2 Kallis
(2004) notes that “studies consistently show that parent involvement raises the achievement of children,
improves the child’s attitude toward school, and enables parents and children to communicate by letting
parents understand and support the work of the school.” p. 3

6. Survey on the use of Frog VLE in Malaysian Schools

6.1 Methodology
A survey was undertaken by the Educational Technology Division, Ministry of Education to study the use of
Frog VLE among teachers and students in primary and secondary schools. The sample comprised 426
teachers of which 254 were primary school teachers and 172 secondary schools teachers. In addition, 223
students, comprising 134 primary school pupils and 89 secondary school students were also included in the
survey sample. A stratified random sampling method was used to select respondents from all states in
Malaysia. Two questionnaires were administered, i.e. i. Teacher questionnaire, and ii. Student
questionnaire. The teacher questionnaire comprised 9 sections: i. School information, ii. School dashboard,
iii. Login ID, iv. Departmental sites, v. School VLE usage analytics, vi. Characteristics of Frog VLE, vii. Usage
of Frog VLE, viii. Development of web sites for teaching and learning, and ix. Problems related to the use of
VLE. The student questionnaire comprised 3 sections: i. Student demographics, ii. Use of Frog VLE, and
iii.Characteristics/features of VLE. A Likert-type scale was used to elicit responses from both students and
teachers on the use of VLE via a 5-point rating scale with 1 corresponding to “Strongly Disagree”, 2:
“Disagree”; 3: “Somewhat Agree”; 4: “Agree” and 5: “Strongly Agree”. Cronbach alpha reliability statistics
show the scale items from the teacher questionnaire attained a reliability coefficient (alpha) of .973 (24
items) for the 5-point rating scale construct pertaining to characteristics of Frog VLE . The student scale
items in the questionnaire on characteristics of Frog VLE attained a reliability coefficient of .918 (8 items).
6.2 Evaluation Framework
The study used a program evaluation conceptual framework based on the constructs outlined above
and following the Scriven (1967) evaluation paradigm as used in formative - summative
evaluation classification. The primary purpose of formative evaluation is to provide information for
program improvement. On the other hand, summative evaluation is concerned with providing information
to serve decisions or assist in making judgments about program adoption, continuation, or expansion.
This study follows the framework used in formative evaluation. Scriven put forth a list of concerns and
checklists related to the formative-summative paradigm and outlined the criteria for evaluating educational
product as comprising: i. Evidence of achievement of important educational objectives, ii. Evidence of
achievement of important non-educational objectives (e.g. social objectives), iii. Follow-up results, iv.
Secondary and unintended effects (e.g. effects on teachers, school, other students), v. Range of utility (e.g.
for whom it will be useful), vi. Moral considerations (e.g. controversial content), and vii. Costs. Scriven (1967)
defines evaluation as judging the worth or merit of something. Others such as Fitzpatrick, Sanders &
Worthen (2004) define evaluation as “the identification, clarification, and application of defensible criteria
to determine an evaluation object’s value (worth or merit) in relation to those criteria.” Basically, the
evaluation uses inquiry and judgment methods such as: i. Determining standards for judging quality and
deciding whether those standards should be relative or absolute, ii. Collecting relevant information, iii.
Applying the standards to determine value, quality, utility, effectiveness, or significance, iv. Evaluation leads
to recommendations intended to optimize the evaluation object in relation to its intended purpose(s) or to
help stakeholders determine whether the evaluation object is worthy of adoption, continuation, or
expansion.

7. Findings from the study

The findings are divided into two sections, i.e. i. Students’ perceptions, and ii. Teachers’ perceptions. The
study shows a generally successfully implementation of Frog VLE. Only key elements are presented in
this paper. For the teachers’ perceptions, factor analysis was used to ascertain salient factors of
teachers’ perceptions with regard to the use of Frog VLE. Other pertinent issues are also discussed, such as
the broadband connectivity, user IDs, school dashboard,and learning sites.
7.1 Students’ Peceptions of VLE
From the students’ perspectives, secondary students tended to perceive significantly higher than primary
school pupils. Table 1 shows the mean value of the construct on VLE use for secondary students is higher
(mean = 4.18; S.D. = .713; n = 89) compared to primary pupils (mean = 3.81; S.D. = .789; n = 134). The
Levene statistic shows equality in the variances between the two groups of respondents. The finding shows
that the means for primary and secondary pupils are significantly different at a confidence interval of 95%.
From Table 2, it can be concluded that the the 2 groups’ means are significantly different (t= -3.593;df=211;
p < .05). The question is why is there a significant difference? The ratings for secondary students are
significantly higher as compared to primary pupils because VLE is more profoundly used by secondary
students, hence the higher mean values. This can also be attributed to VLE being better utilised at the
secondary school level as the construct is based on the use of VLE as a learning tool. Differences in the
perceptions of primary and secondary students in use of VLE are shown in Table 1 below: Table 3 shows
the statistical computations comparing the mean ratings of primary and secondary students for each item
in the construct. Of the key elements, students perceived highest in the VLE being an interesting tool for
learning (mean=4.29; n=223;SD=.788) while collaboration among peers in doing assignments both within
the classroom and outside the classroom is rated lowest, i.e. with mean=3.79 (n=223;SD=1.02) for
collaboration within classroom and mean = 3.79 (n=223; SD=1.03) respectively.

7.2 Key Success Factors cited by Teachers in the use of Frog VLE
Factor analysis was used to determine the key success factors cited by teachers. The data structure is tested
for suitability for factor analysis via the Principal Component Analysis method. The appropriateness
of using factor analysis is tested using Bartlett’s test of sphericity which is a statistical test for the presence
of correlations among the variables. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity shows a significance level of less than
.05 (chi-sq=10156.698; df=276; p<.001). This means that the data structure of the variables is appropriate
for factor analysis. In addition, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Adequacy (MSA) is used to quantify the
degree of inter-correlations among the variables and the appropriateness of factor analysis. The MSA value
is very high, i.e. .962 indicating that factor analysis is appropriate. On the key success factors, the latent
root criterion is used. This is the most commonly used technique. With Principal Component Analysis,
each variable contributes a value of 1 to the total eigenvalue. Thus, only factors having latent roots or
eigenvalues greater than 1 are considered significant and all factors with latent roots less than 1 are
considered insignificant and disregarded (see Figure 1). The findings also show that the percentage
of variance criterion jives well with the latent root method in the extraction of factors. The variance
criterion method is an approach used for achieving a specified cumulative percentage of total variance
extracted by successive factors. The purpose is to ensure practical significance for the derived factors by
ensuring that they explain at least a specified amount of variance. Using the percentage of variance
criterion, the first factor is labelled as “Functionality of VLE as a pedagogical tool” and this contributes
62.60% to the variance, the second factor is labelled as “Physical attributes of VLE” and it contributes 5.11%
and the third factor is labelled as “Tool for collaboration” and this contributes 4.21% of the variance.
Specifically, an analysis for the congruence of factors indicates that the first factor concerns the
development of resources, curriculum management and ubiquitous learning. The second factor concerns
user-friendly graphical user interface leading to ease of use and it must be interesting. The third factor
concerns communication among teachers, parents and students in a collaborative virtual environment. An
analysis of ranks in the mean values derived from the factors is shown in Tables 4 (a) and 4 (b) below.
Within items in the first factor, the first rank goes to “VLE providing a platform for teachers to share ideas
and opinions” (mean = 3.79). The second rank goes to “VLE as a portal for students to obtain learning
materials” (mean = 3.71). Third on the rank is the item “VLE is used by teachers to recommend teaching
resources” (mean = 3.67). For the second factor (see Table 5), rank 1 concerns the “Resources in VLE are
interesting” (mean = 3.80). The second rank concerns “VLE being used by teachers for sharing lesson plans
and resources” (mean = 3.76). Third is “Teaching and learning occurs any where and any time” (mean =
3.68) which is synonymous with the ubiquitious nature of VLE. For the third factor (see Table 6), the item
which is ranked first is “Parents find VLE easy to use” (mean = 3.57), the second rank is “Parents feel they
are a part of the school community” (mean = 3.49). The third rank goes to “Parents can monitor progress
of children” (mean = 3.28).

7.3 Findings on Broadband Connectivity

From the teachers’ responses, it is obvious that connectivity in schools is an important issue which must be
resolved quickly. Using a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 means “No Connectivity” and 4 means “Stable
Connectivity”, the findings (as shown in Table7) show an average of 2.04 (n=254; SD=.975) for primary
schools and 1.97 (n=172; SD=.982) for secondary schools giving an overall mean of 2.01 (n=426; SD=.977)
for all schools. Based on the frequency counts as shown in Table 8, 4.2% (18) indicated “No Connectivity”,
29.8% (127) indicated “Not Stable”, 30.8% (131) indicated “Fairly Stable”, another 30.8% (131) indicated
“Stable” and 4.5% (19) indicated “Very Stable”. From the perspectives of urban-rural schools in terms of
broadband connectivity (see Table 9), the findings show that urban schools have slightly better stability, i.e.
2.05 (n=162; SD=.951) as compared to rural schools with mean of 1.99 (n=264; SD=.994). Overall, the mean
is 2.01 (n=426; SD=.977). Table 10 shows the frequency counts based on the stability index. A total of 4.2%
(18) teachers indicated “No Connectivity”, 29.8% (127) indicated “Not Stable”, 30.8% (131) indicated “Fairly
Stable”, 30.8% (131) indicated “Stable” and 4.5% (19) “Very Stable”. It can be seen that most of the
responses are clustered around the 3 response points, i.e. “No Connectivity”, “Less Stable” and “Fairly
Stable”.Table 11 shows the contents created in the School Dashboard. The majority of school
teachers indicated that they had uploaded contents which were useful for those who had access to their
school websites. Of the contents created, a large majority of schools had school address and telephone
contacts (87.1%) and also mission and vision statements of the school (83.6%). School song (55.2%) and
school Head’s remarks (57.5%) seemed to be the least emphasis given by the schools. Under the VLE
component of 1BestariNet, a total of 10 million unique IDs had been given to school administrators,
teachers, students and parents. The school community needs to log-in to the VLE using their individual IDs.
The findings of this study (see Table 12) show that a significant number of teachers had received thier IDs
(396 (93%)). However, many students and parents did not receive their IDs. The percentage of students
who did not receive their IDs is 45.1% (192) as against 54.9% (234) who indicated they had received their
IDs. The findings from parents seem rather disappointing, i.e. only 25.1% (107) of the parents had received
their IDs as compared to 74.9% (319) of parents who had not. The creation of subject-based sites is
an important feature of Frog VLE. The study shows that the majority of teachers had indeed created sites
(>60%). Malay/Bahasa Malaysia had the most number of departmental sites, i.e. 296 (69.5%) of
teachers indicating “Yes” for this subject. This is followed by Mathematics comprising 279 (65.5%). Table
13 below shows the frequencies and percentages of departmental sites created. The majority of the
teachers indicated that the departmental sites had been created to serve as a channel for the
dissemination of information. Findings from the study reveal that 75.1% (320) of the teachers stated “Yes”
for this purpose as compared to 24.9% (106) who responded “No”. As to the question of whether students
could view these departmental sites which had been created, again the majority i.e. 73% (311) indicated
“Yes” while 27.0% (115) indicated “No”.

7.4 Use of VLE for Teaching and Learning

Findings from the study show varying degrees of uses for VLE in teaching and learning. The majority
of teachers (65.2%; n=208) stated that they use VLE for teaching and learning while 34.8% (111) stated
they did not. Only 47.5% (152) of teachers stated they used VLE as a medium to send homework to
students as compared to 52.5% (168) who stated they did not. The majority of teachers, i.e. 67.1% (214)
stated that students did not use the VLE to send assignments as compared to only 32.9% (105) who stated
they did. In relation to the question whether teachers checked the assignment of students using VLE, a
majority i.e.68.6% (218) stated “No” while only 31.4% (100) indicated “Yes”. The survey also studied the use
of teaching and learning resources in the Frog Store for teaching and learning and a majority i.e. 51.7%
(164) teachers stated they did not while 48.3% (153) stated they used those resources in the Frog Store
for teaching and learning.
7.5 Website Development within Frog VLE
The development of websites is important in virtual learning. Websites provide the opportunity for teachers
to develop their instructional materials and upload them for use by students and other teachers. From the
study, it is noted that 88.5% (285) of teachers continuously updated their personal dashboard while 11.5%
(37) did not. The majority of teachers, i.e.77.6% (250) had used the VLE to develop resources in Frog VLE as
compared to 22.4% (72) who did not. On the sharing of sites, 64.8% (208) teachers indicated that they
shared teaching and learning sites with others in the school as compared to 35.2% (113) who did not. As to
the question whether teachers shared their sites in Frog VLE through the MOE repository, a large number
of the teachers, i.e. 72.4% (233) said they did not while only 27.6% (89) said they did.

8. Monitoring of VLE Key Performance Indicators

Key Performance Indicators (KPI) were set to monitor the progress of: i. Quality of broadband services ii.
Number of learnng sites uploaded to the VLE and iii. VLE usage among students. For a project of this scale,
the KPIs must be outcome-based and measurable. Weekly reports were made to a specially established
body called the Performance and Delivery Unit to map the progress. The Performance and Delivery Unit
coordinates all initiatives under the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013 – 2025. The quality of broadband
services is measured against the Service Level Agreement (SLA) agreed upon between the supplier and the
Ministry. For schools connected via 4G technology, there is an SLA for broadband speed of between 4 to
10 Mbps. To determine this KPI, weekly measurements are carried out on randomly selected schools (3,200
and 3,500) on a weekly basis. Broadband connectivity speeds are measured between 1 to 15 times weekly
to determine this. Results show more than 99% of the sample schools attain broadband speeds of between
4 to 10 Mbps on a weekly basis. VLE usage among teachers and students is monitored on a weekly basis to
determine the progress achieved thus far and to ensure that the learning sites developed by teachers are
“fit for purpose”. “Fit for purpose” means that the learning sites must be of good quality for instructional
purposes. A team comprising evaluators from the relevant divisions in the MOE has been entrusted to vet
and make recommendations on the learning sites uploaded onto VLE. The KPI set is 10,000 learning sites
developed by teachers in 2014. As of the 4th week of August, the Learning Site Dashboard shows a
cumulative total of 11,578 sites have been developed by teachers and uploaded onto the VLE. Of this
figure, 9,567 had been published while 55 were still in the pending stage. A total of 2,011 sites had to be
declined because of quality issues. Constant monitoring of VLE is imperative to ensure optimum usage
among teachers and students. Of the teachers who have been provided with IDs, the VLE Dashboard
shows 75% of them had actually logged into the VLE and used it for teaching purposes. For students,
monitoring is done also on a weekly basis and reported to the Performance and Delivery Unit. For the last
week of August 2014, a total of 160,702 primary and secondary school students had actually logged onto
the VLE. Of this number, 84,104 students logged onto the VLE for more than 30 minutes while 76,598
students logged on for less than 30 minutes per week. This constitutes 52.34%.

9. Quality of Service

An independent quality of service study was undertaken to gauge the quality of service of
internet connectivity over a period of time. Among the aspects studied includes i. Latency of network
ii. Throughput/Bandwidth iii. Packet Loss iv. Jitter dan v. Mean Opinion Score (MOS). The findings
show satisfactory results of the above measurements. These results were then used for planning purposes
to improve network capabilities.

10. Impact of Study

A project of such magnitude affecting all school principals, teachers, students and parents must lead to the
desired outcomes. Hence it is imperative that the MOE engage an independent party to conduct an impact
study. The impact, of measures currently undertaken, would look at programme effectiveness, cost-
effectivess and cost-benefit issues of the VLE and other parameters of the initiative during the two and
a half years of implementation. What is important is that this impact study will provide informed
decisionmaking on the future direction of the 1BestariNet initiative in which the VLE is a major component.

11. Discussion
The findings support previous research in this area, indicating that functionality and usability of the VLE (as
shown by good VLE attributes) and the ability to faciliate collaborations are what a VLE should be. For the
implementation of VLE to be successful, it is important that a good broadband connectivity be provided.
Resources within the VLE must be plentiful for teachers and students to leverage on teaching and learning.
On top of that, the introduction of a project of such magnitude must lead to positive outcomes in teaching
and learning. To successfully implement the VLE, it is very important that there is buy-in from all
stakeholders. Very frequently, change management is not implemented effectively, resulting in poor
adoption and buy-in. But the Frog VLE has a change management component built into its
implementation. Carnivals, briefing sessions, hand-holding activities and promotions on a nation-wide
basis are imperative to disseminate the use of Frog VLE as teaching and learning portal. Another important
issue is motivation. How can we motivate teachers and students in using the VLE? Continuous professional
development must take place in phases. The MOE implements training in phases and create a core group
of “Champion Schools” which serve as catalyst schools for others to emulate. Therefore, it is imperative that
a VLE must be effective, reliable, operable, functional, learnable, memorable, and efficient. Students and
teachers must feel comfortable with the system in order to focus on learning the contents. Since usability
was found to be a significant contributor to teachers’ needs, it is of utmost importance for schools to
consider leveraging virtual learning environments in teaching and learning. The MOE is planning for the
establishment of virtual schools to leverage on ICT in education and upscale teaching and learning. Indeed
the Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013 – 2025 emphasises the need to upscale teaching and learning
through ICT.

12. Conclusion
Learning needs to be placed in the correct social context - educational methods must be socially relevant
in order to be effective and this means using current communication technologies to leverage teaching
and learning. In other words, students need to see that education is keeping up with their “culture”.
If education is perceived as consisting of old ideas and old ways of learning, and have little or no relevance
to what is happening in the contemporary world, then students are less likely to engage with them.
The 1BestariNet is expected to result in fundamental shifts in the provision of a technologically-endowed
and innovative way of delivering instruction.

Reference
1. Bouhnik, D. & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in Distance-Learning Courses. Journal of the American

Society Information Science and Technology, 57 (3), 299 – 305.

2. Capper, J. (2001). E-learning Growth and Promise for the Developing World. Tech-KnowLogia,
May/June, 7 – 10.

3. Fitzpatrick, J.L., Sanders, J.R., Worthen, B.R.,(2004). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and
Practical Guidelines. Allyn & Bacon.

4. Frog Asia. (2014). What is Frog VLE? Retrieved 20 September 2014 from
http://www.frogasia.com/v3/what-is-frog/.

5. Hanna, D.E. (2003). Organizational Models in Higher Education, Past and Future. In More,M.G. &
Anderson, W.G. (Eds.). Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 73 – 74).Mahwah, N.J.: L.Erlbaum
Associates.

6. Harrington, C., Gordon, S., & Schibik, T. (2004).Course Management System Utilization and Implications
for Practice: A National Survey of Department Chairpersons. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 7 (9).

7. Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence : The Impact of School, Family and
Community Connections on Student Acheivement. SEDL's National Center for Family and Community
Connections with Schools.

8. Kallis, G. (2004). Edline: A Student's Best Friend. San Mateo Daily Journal.

9. King, F.B. (2002). A Virtual Student Not An Ordinary Joe. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 157 –

166.
10. Liaw, S.S. (2007). Investigating Students' Perceived Satisfaction, Behavioral Intention and Effectiveness of
e-Learning: A Case Study of the Blackboard System,Computers & Education.

11. Ministry of Education, Malaysia. (2013).Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013 – 2025 (Preschool to Post-
Secondary Education).Putrajaya: MOE Malaysia.

12. Naidu, S. (2003). Designing Insruction for e-Learning Environments. In Moore, M.G. & Anderson, W.G.
(Eds.). Handbook of Distance Education (p.362). Mahwah, N.J.L.Erlbaum Associates.

13. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., Ives, B. (2001). Webbased Virtual Learning Environments: A Research Framework
and a Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness Basic IT Skills Training. MIS Quaterly, Vol. 25, No. 4,

pp.401 – 426.
14. Rosemary Han Kim. (2010). Self-Directed Learning Management System : Enabling Competency and
Self-Efficacy in Online Learning Environments. PhD thesis,Claremont Graduate University.

15. Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.),
Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39-83). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

16. Strom, P. & Strom, R. (2003). Teacher-Parent Communication Reforms. The High School Journal, 86 (2),

14 – 21.
17. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2012). Malaysia Education
Policy Review. Final Report, May 2012.

18. Volery, T. & Lord, D. (2000). Critical Success Factors in Online Education. The International Journal of

Educational Management, 14 (5), 216 – 223.

19. Wikipedia, (2014). Virtual Learning Environment. Retrieved 20 September 2014 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualLearningEnvironment/

20. Wilson, B.G. (1996). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Educational Technology Publication