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

HNUE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE
Educational Sciences, 2020, Volume 64, Issue 4B, pp. 61-72
This paper is available online at

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.

1.

Introduction

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:

61


Pham Thi Dieu Thuy

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.

Content

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
1.00 – 1.80
1.81 – 2.60
2.61 – 3.40
3.41 – 4.20
4.21 – 5.00

62

The corresponding rating level
Unnecessary / Unimportant / Never / Very low impact / Poor
Less Needed / Less Important / Rarely / Low Impact / Weak
Normal / Occasional / Relatively Effective / Moderate
Needed / Important / Regular / High impact/ Fair
Very necessary / Very important / Very often / Very high impact /
Good


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

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

1

Intradisciplinary

2
3
4

Integrating/Combining
Multidisciplinary
Interdisciplinary
Grouped by integrated
topics
Transdisciplinary

5

6

1
1.3

Rating level (%)
2
3
4
2.6
27.3
54.5

5
0.0

̅
𝑿

SD

Rank

3.78

0.772

1

0.0

1.3
1.3

13.0
31.2
18.2

16.9
40.3
31.2

64.9
20.8
45.5

5.2
6.5
3.9

3.62
3.00
3.32

0.779
0.918
0.865

2
5
4

1.3

7.8

41.6

42.9

6.5

3.45

0.787

3

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”)
63


Pham Thi Dieu Thuy

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
No.
Contents
f
%
Rank
1
At all the lessons
7
13.2
7
Within the section “General foundations of educational
2
14
26.4
5
scientific research”
Within the section “Identify educational scientific research
3
29

54.7
2
topic and build a theoretical basis for the research topic”
Within the section “Methods of educational scientific
4
37
69.8
1
research”
Within section “Process of implementing an educational
5
26
49.1
3
scientific research project”
6
Only in some possible lessons
16
30.2
4
7
Only in the simple parts of knowledge
5
9.4
8
8
Only in the difficult knowledge, highly applicable
10
18.9
6

9
Never done
2
3.8
9
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
Lecturers
Students
No.
Modules/Contents of knowledge
f
%
rank
f
%

rank
1
Psychology
45
84.9
2
535
65.6
2
2
Pedagogy
47
88.7
1
634
77.7
1
3
Philosophy
20
37.7
6
224
27.5
6
4
Logic
30
56.6
5

304
37.3
5
64


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

5
6

Probability and Statistics
39
73.6
3
380
46.6
3
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
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Teaching methods
Presentation
Question and answer teaching
Visual
Training and practice method
Problem solving

Group discussion
Project-based teaching
Situational teaching
Contract teaching
WebQuest Teaching - discover online
Teaching through scientific research
Role playing method
Gaming method
Differentiated teaching
Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)

̅
𝑿
3.72
3.74
3.34
4.11
3.83
4.21
2.87
3.32
2.36
2.60
3.53
2.55
2.58
2.75

Lecturers

Students
̅
Rank
Rank
SD
SD
𝑿
0.907
5
3.77
0.860
4
0.625
4
3.65
0.836
5
0.732
7
3.39
0.923
6
0.640
2
3.79
0.784
3
0.893
3
4.05

0.798
1
0.661
1
3.93
0.863
2
1.001
9
2.51
1.090
10
0.915
8
2.90
1.100
7
0.857
14
2.03
1.036
14
1.007
11
2.23
1.106
12
0.749
6
2.82

1.126
8
0.889
13
2.48
1.119
11
0.865
12
2.69
1.165
9
0.875
10
2.19
1.054
13
R = 0.916**
Sig. = 0.000

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
65


Pham Thi Dieu Thuy

“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
No.
1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Teaching techniques
3 times 3
XYZ
KWL-KWLH
“Fish tank” technique
“Ball bearing” technique
5W1H
Lightning technique
Mind map
“Tablecloth” technique
“Puzzle pieces” technique
Sharing in pair
Task assignment
Argument for support and opposition
Feedback technique in teaching process
Art gallery
Summary of document content in groups
Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

̅
𝑿
2.45
2.55
2.47
2.81
2.42
2.72
2.58
3.26
3.04
2.79
3.23
3.64
3.21
3.15
2.60
3.58

Lecturers
Students
̅
Rank
Rank
SD
SD
𝑿
1.030

15
2.12 1.137
11
0.992
13
2.12 1.130
11
0.846
14
1.94 1.009
16
1.001
8
2.12 1.108
11
0.887
16
2.02 1.082
15
1.063
10
2.15 1.165
9
0.949
12
2.13 1.160
10
1.129
3
2.93 1.229

5
1.018
7
2.49 1.226
7
1.044
9
2.37 1.164
8
1.050
4
3.07 1.205
3
1.002
1
3.35 1.129
1
1.063
5
2.99 1.135
4
1.099
6
2.67 1.154
6
0.947
11
2.09 1.088
14
0.989

2
3.18 1.182
2
R = 0.923**
Sig. = 0.000

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),
66


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

“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
Lecturers
Students
No. Organizational forms of teaching
̅
̅
Rank
Rank
SD
SD
𝑿
𝑿
1 Teaching in class
4.30
0.607
1
4.47

0.654
1
2 Extracurricular activities
2.53
0.890
5
2.55
1.110
5
3 Self-study at home
3.91
0.687
3
3.76
0.853
3
4 Seminar, discussion
3.77
0.577
4
3.44
1.052
4
5 Teaching in groups
4.08
0.583
2
3.77
0.954
2

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), “Productwritten 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 =
67


Pham Thi Dieu Thuy

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
No.

Assessment forms

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Writing test (multiple choice, essay)
Oral test
Practical test
Learning records
Exercise sheet
Assessment through discussion
Products-written material (essay)
Project product
Peer assessment
Self-assessment

Assessment by criteria (Rubric)
Assessment through observation
Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)

̅
𝑿
3.47
3.11
3.87
3.06
3.40
3.62
3.66
2.94
2.92
3.13
3.11
3.21

Lecturers
̅
Rank
SD
𝑿
0.890
4
3.97
0.847
7

3.23
0.785
1
3.46
0.969
10
2.58
0.862
5
2.99
0.837
3
3.45
0.876
2
3.46
1.045
12
2.50
0.781
11
2.34
0.921
9
2.86
1.013
7
2.56
0.968
6

3.10
R = 0.884**
Sig. = 0.000

Students
Rank
SD
0.846
1
1.062
5
0.981
2
1.118
9
1.135
7
0.992
4
1.059
2
1.160
11
1.113
12
1.100
8
1.154
10
1.103

6

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
1

2

68

Forms of
participation
in scientific
research

Participate
in
scientific
research
for
students at the
department
level
Participate
in
scientific
research
for

North

Regions
Middle

Academic year of students
Second
Third
Fourth

South

General

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

67

26.0

43

13.4

26

11.0

14

10.5

47

15.7

75

19.6

136

16.7

15

5.8

28

8.7

13

5.5

11

8.3

16

5.3

29

7.6

56

6.9


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

3

4

students at the

university level
Participate
in
scientific
research
projects
with
lecturers
Never
participate
in
scientific
research

30

11.6

26

8.1

18

7.6

12

9.0

24

8.0

38

9.9

74

9.1

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
No.
1
2
3

4
5
6

Level of awareness
Remember
Understand
Apply
Analyze
Evaluate
Create

̅
𝑿
3.96
3.94
3.51
3.34
3.23
3.08

Lecturers
Rank
SD
0.649
1
0.633
2
0.639
3

0.706
4
0.800
5
0.756
6

̅
𝑿
4.09
3.92
3.62
3.40
3.37
3.13

Students
SD
0.683
0.691
0.733
0.687
0.733
0.812

Rank
1
2
3
4

5
6

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 selfassessment 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,

69


Pham Thi Dieu Thuy

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
No.
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

70

Difficulties
Reviewing of the module curriculum to select integrated teaching
content/topics
Defining objectives of integrated lesson
Determining the competencies that need to be formulated for the students
Planning integrated lecture
Designing the integrated teaching situations
Selecting methods, techniques, forms of integrated teaching organization
Selecting the forms of inspection and evaluation
Managing classroom activities
The lack of facilities and equipment for integrated teaching
Teaching time is not enough to organize integrated teaching
Lecturers themselves do not fully understand about integrated teaching

f

%

rank

32

60.4

2

21
18
17
18
17
11
13
21
21
13

39.6
34.0
32.1
34.0
32.1
20.8
24.5
39.6
39.6
24.5

4
7
9
7
9
14
11
4
4
11


The status of using integrated teaching in education scientific research methods for students …
12
13
14

The source of integrated teaching is limited
Students still lack specialized knowledge
Students are not interested in integrated teaching form

24
33
13

45.3
62.3
24.5

3

1
11

Table 11. Difficulties students encountered when participating in learning ESRM
with integrated teaching contents
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Difficulties
Specialized knowledge is incomplete
Less time to organize classroom teaching
Not interested in teaching topics that lecturers chose
School facilities and equipment are not guaranteed
Integrated teaching capacity of lecturers is limited
The ability of self-study and self-research is not enough to meet the
goals of this integrated teaching module

f
593
349
197
213
100

%
72.7
42.8
24.1
26.1
12.3

rank

603

73.9

1

2
3
5
4
6

Table 11 shows that six given difficulties were selected by students. In particular, the
difficulty that students chose the most is “The ability of self-study and self-research is not enough
to meet the goals of this integrated teaching module” with 603/816, accounting for 73.9% (ranked
1st). Next, there are 593/816 students accounting for 72.7% (ranked 2nd) chose the difficulty
“Specialized knowledge is incomplete”, this choice is also consistent with the opinion of lecturers
that the biggest difficulty they encounter when carrying out integrated teaching is students still
lack specialized knowledge. The next difficulties are “Less time to organize classroom teaching”
(349/816, corresponding to 42.8%, ranked 3rd), “School facilities and equipment are not
guaranteed” (213/816 corresponding to 26.1%, ranked fourth), “Not interested in the integrated

teaching topic that lecturers chose” (197/816 corresponds to 24.1%, ranked 5th) and “Integrated
teaching capacity of lecturers is limited” (100/816 corresponds to 12.3%, ranked 6th). Thus, the
biggest difficulties that students thought that they encountered in the learning process using an
integrated perspective mainly stemmed from themselves, because the ability to self-study and
self-research is not enough to meet the goals of this integrated teaching module and due to
inadequate amount of specialized knowledge. Besides, although with a lower selection rate, there
are still some students who believe that the cause is partly due to lecturers and training institutions
such as facilities, equipment of the school are not guaranteed and teaching capacity of lecturers
is limited. This finding may suggest that apart from enhancing student’s ability to self-study and
self-research and their own specialized knowledge, educational universities will need to improve
integrated teaching capacity for their lecturers, as well as to equip more modern teaching
equipment to support the teaching and learning process.

3.

Conclusion

Managers and teachers of educational universities in the survey evaluated the teaching ESRM
using an integrated perspective at the level of “very necessary”. Although the lecturers claimed
that they have “often” implemented integration in their teaching process, their implementation
was more inclined to “Intradisciplinary” and “Integrating/combining”. In teaching ESRM in
general and using an integrated perspective in particular, lecturers used a combination of a number
of positive teaching methods and techniques. However, lecturers still mainly used traditional
teaching methods. Positive teaching methods were still used at the “Rarely” level, teaching
techniques were rarely used by lecturers. The main teaching organization used is “Teaching in
class”, the form of assessment is not diverse, mainly in writing test or final essay. The correlation
tests show that there is a high degree of conformity in lecturers’ self-assessment and students’
assessment of these situations. Most lecturers and students assess that students show a positive,
self-conscious when participating in learning lessons from integrated perspective. However, the
71

Pham Thi Dieu Thuy

majority of students answered that they have never participated in scientific research; considering
the regional factor, students in Northern universities have a higher rate of participation in
scientific research, according to the factor of academic year, students in the fourth year have
higher participation rate in scientific research. Lecturers and students have presented a number of
difficulties they encountered in the process of participating in teaching and learning this module
using an integrated perspective.
REFERENCES
[1] Resolution of the 8th Plenum of the 11th Party Central Committee on fundamental and
comprehensive innovation in education and training, issued on 4/11/2013, p.10.
[2] Nguyen Canh Toan, 2001. Self-education, self-study, self-research, Hanoi National
University of Education, East-West Cultural Center, Hanoi.
[3] Xavier Roegiers, 1996. Integrated pedagogy or how to develop competencies at schools,
translated by Dao Trong Quang and Nguyen Ngoc Nhi, Vietnam Education Publishing
House Limited Company, Hanoi, p.73-74.
[4] Tran Thi Thanh Thuy (chief author), Nguyen Cong Khanh, Nguyen Van Ninh, Nguyen
Manh Huong, Bui Xuan Anh, Luu Thi Thu Ha, 2016. Integrated teaching to develop
students’ competency, Volume 2. University of Education Publishing House.
[5] Pham Hong Quan, 2019. Some methods of fostering integrated teaching capacity for
humanity and social sciences lectures at military universities nowadays, Journal of
Education, No. 450, p.24-28.
[6] U Usmeldi, R Amini, 2019. The effect of integrated learning model to the students
competency on the natural science, International Conference on Mathematics and Science
Education, IOP Publishing, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022022.
[7] Ankur Joshi, Saket Kale, Satish Chandel, D. K. Kal, Likert Scale: Explored and Explained,
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 7(4): 396-403, 2015, Article
no.BJAST.2015.157, ISN: 2231-0843, p.397-403.

72