Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Zaffar Ahmed Shaikh and Shakeel Ahmed Khoja
gories viz. the teacher, the researcher at doctoral level, PLE designer/developer, and PLE practitioner/e-learning
expert, (b) must have some publication track record and/or research contributions, (d)
must have at least one year of domain experience, and (d) must be willing to participate at voluntarily
basis.
At the start of this study, a total of 36 experienced PLE stakeholders accepted to participate, however,
two could not respond to the final round. Hence the Delphi group was comprised of 34 members who
participated in all three rounds. Of the 34 participants, eight had an academic background of teaching,
six had a researching background as PLE researchers at doctoral level, six participants identified
themselves as PLE designers/developers, and 14 were PLE practitioners/elearning experts working
as staff members or executives in commercial enterprises. Participants included both males and females.
There were 34 panelists, out of which 19 (56 percent) were male and 15 (44 percent) were
female. There were six panelists (two males and six females) with doctorate and/or more advanced
level qualifications. The time took to complete this three-round study was one and one-half months
during the summer of 2011.
The RIQ consisted of an exhaustive set of 60 skills and knowledge derived from the literature on
teachers’ personalized learning skills set. Experts were asked to rate the skills on criticality level on
assigned five-point likert-type scale. They were also given the opportunity to provide suggestions in
description, in terms of deletion, addition, comment, or recommendation of any of the skills and also to
suggest additional skills. Before attempting for Round II Questionnaire (RIIQ), the Delphi participants
were presented a summary of the changes generated in skills from Round I responses.
The RIIQ required participants to select one or more competencies, in which, as they perceive, did
each of the teachers’ skills or tasks fall. A set of skills that received participants’ 50 or more votes for
each competency in Round II responses were ranked on the group mean value in descending order.
For Round III Questionnaire (RIIIQ), the experts were instructed to rate the skills on desirability scale.
They were requested to select the highly desirable skills that according to their perception a teacher
must possess.
3. Data analysis
This Delphi’s RIQ was aimed at formulating a personalized learning skills set of teachers for each
competency required for students’ PLE process. Data analysis for this round was carried out using
asymmetric lambda to develop the table to allow participants to select one or more competencies.
Sample of data analysis of questions and the choices for responses to participants in RIQ has been
shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Showing a skill in round I questionnaire
Teachers’ Personalized Learning Skills Teachers’ PLE Competencies
Define participative and social learning activities that support indi-
P&D I&L C&I M&A UoT
vidual learners’ personal life goals and needs.
Table 1 shows one of 60 personalized learning skills that were identified through literature review.
During RIQ, participants were instructed to select one or more core competencies to be as a required
skill of that competency. The categories are: Planning and Design (P&D), Instruction and Learning
(I&L), Communication and Interaction (C&I), Management and Administration (M&A), and Use of
Technology (UoT). In Round I responses, participants evaluated teachers’ skills and competencies
critically and developed a preliminary list of personalized learning skills against each competency in
response to how to develop professional competencies as per their responsibilities. Some new skills
such as: defining and designing personalized learning processes and activities for learners, engaging
students in group processes of inquiry, enabling self direction, knowledge building and autonomy of
students, and acquainting students’ with basic technology skills, were suggested. Few skills that they
consented as not important were asked to be deleted for the consequent rounds.
The RIIQ was developed after the analysis of RIQ responses. This round is used to develop consensus
or achieve at least some level of stability in the diverse opinions offered by participants. The aim
was to further develop group consensus on this revised skills set. During this round, participants were
asked to re-evaluate each skill according to the perceived importance (number of times participants
selected it) group placed on each skill in RIQ, as shown in Table 2. They were instructed based on
their selection of skills during this round, a skill that receives fifty or more (>= 50) percent of partici-
764