See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336803973

Modular/Block teaching: practices and challenges at higher education

institutions of Ethiopia

Article  in  Teaching in Higher Education · October 2019

DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1681391

CITATIONS READS

0 597

2 authors:

Abatihun Sewagegn Boitumelo Molebogeng Diale

University of Johannesburg University of Johannesburg
11 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Implementation of technical and vocational education in the Senior Phase in Gauteng schools View project

Cyberbullying View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Boitumelo Molebogeng Diale on 17 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Teaching in Higher Education
Critical Perspectives

ISSN: 1356-2517 (Print) 1470-1294 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Modular/Block teaching: practices and challenges

at higher education institutions of Ethiopia

Abatihun A. Sewagegn & Boitumelo M. Diale

To cite this article: Abatihun A. Sewagegn & Boitumelo M. Diale (2019): Modular/Block teaching:
practices and challenges at higher education institutions of Ethiopia, Teaching in Higher Education,
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1681391

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1681391

Published online: 24 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20
TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1681391

Modular/Block teaching: practices and challenges at higher

education institutions of Ethiopia
Abatihun A. Sewagegn and Boitumelo M. Diale
Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg,
South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of the study was to investigate the practices and Received 13 October 2018
challenges of modular/block teaching in higher education Accepted 13 October 2019
institutions of Ethiopia. A descriptive survey design was used with
KEYWORDS
instructors and students. Questionnaires and semi-structured Active learning; attitude;
interviews were used to gather data and analysed quantitatively challenge; instructors;
(descriptive and inferential statistics) and qualitatively (thematic modular/block teaching;
analysis). The results showed variations in practice across different practice
universities. It was found that modular/block teaching helps
students to concentrate on one subject at a time but does not
place emphasis on practical skills; this means that the theory and
practice of the theory stay separate, which does not make
learning credible. Additionally, it was found that due to the
limited time given for one course, it was difficult to implement
active learning. Generally, instructors and students faced
challenges in the practice of modular/block teaching. Practically,
the authors have made suggestions for the better implementation
of modular/block teaching.

Introduction
A country’s development is substantially dependent on the contribution made by its edu-
cation system. In this regard, higher education institutions (HEIs) are expected to make
significant contributions to the development of the next generation’s workforce, equipping
them with the knowledge and basic skills needed to sustain and advance the national
economy (Desta 2004). It serves this purpose via enhancing the personal development
of individuals, as well as providing public benefits. Therefore, any educational programme
should aim at changing human behaviour and teaching and learning are considered to be
one of the main activities in higher education that can effect these changes. Hence, the
purpose of the paper is to explore the pedagogic challenges that arose from the need to
offer teaching in a new, fixable format.
Educators nowadays are researching the efficiency of new approaches to teaching and
learning. One of the new methods being used in teaching and learning is what is referred to
as the modular approach or modularisation (Espinosa 2009).

CONTACT Abatihun A. Sewagegn abatihuns@uj.ac.za Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Edu-

cation, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, APK campus, Auckland-park 2006, Johannesburg, South Africa
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. A. SEWAGEGN AND B. M. DIALE

Modularisation is the process of bringing topics/subjects together based on their themes

or competences in the realisation of the graduate profile, increasing competition between
institutions of higher education as credits can then be transferred (W/Yohannes et al.
2014). These authors also noted that modularisation demands that most learning tasks
are delivered on a block basis; learners are required to exclusively work on a group of
learning tasks at one time. As a result, both learners and instructors remain busy in inde-
pendent activities.
The relationship between a modular curriculum and block teaching is analogous to the
relationship that exists between a curriculum and instruction (Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel
2011). A curriculum is a programme and instruction is a method; likewise, a modular cur-
riculum is a programme, whereas block teaching is a method. A method in this context is a
means and/or mode of delivering a given programme of education to students or learners. A
modular approach helps to maximise the chances of student participation in the classroom
with respect to fulfilling the given tasks on the spot (Sadig 2014), which means it is a good
approach to making the teaching more student-centred. However, these lectures are quite
ineffective for stimulating higher-order thinking (Biggs and Tang 2007).
Once a modular curriculum is designed and modules are prepared, the next logical step
is to implement them by choosing the appropriate mode of delivery and/or method of
teaching. As Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel (2011) reflect, a modular curriculum could
be implemented using several competing ways of delivery and/or schedules. Semester-
based scheduling, term-based scheduling, and block scheduling are among the possible
modes or ways of scheduling or delivering a modular curriculum. Block teaching, there-
fore, is nothing other than one way or method of delivering the curriculum programme. It
is teaching that is blocked. Therefore, in a modular approach, similar courses are grouped
together in the same module but are delivered in a block format or schedule in which one
course may be given for between eight to 16 working days, depending on the credit hours.
According to the Ethiopian Ministry of Education (MoE 2012), universities in Ethiopia
have started major reforms over the last decade and modularisation was proposed as the
best way for the execution of curricula and the production of knowledgeable worldwide
learners.
There are different reasons that HEIs choose modular/block teaching or modularisa-
tion. Some of the reasons are:

. The existing curricula are discipline-based and the courses are fragmented;
. the existing curricula do not say anything about student workload, which is very impor-
tant for students’ success in their academic life; and
. there is a loose link between the world of education and the world of work, because of
the inherent problem of the existing curriculum – that is the approach to teaching and
learning is more teacher-focused and the assessment is traditional not authentic (MOE
2012; Gebremeskel 2014; Jimma and Tarekegn 2016).

Since 2010, the Ethiopian Ministry of Education introduced the modular approach to
teaching and learning, which was to be implemented in all public universities at under-
graduate level. The concept was not completely new to the Ethiopian education system.
It was introduced in TVET colleges and Master’s programmes at Addis Ababa University
(MoE 2012). At the undergraduate level, a modular approach to teaching was
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3

implemented in some government universities, but there were variations in the process of
implementation between and within universities.
According to Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel (2011), modularisation can have advan-
tages and disadvantages for both students and instructors. The advantages for students
include that it allows everybody to proceed at their own pace, it provides an opportunity
for students to choose their own learning mode and also allows students to identify their
strengths and weaknesses. Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel (2011) add that, for instructors,
the modular/block design is advantageous in that staff work can be reduced by means of
self-study components, with emphasis on the accompanying written materials.
The modular approach is similar to block teaching, which is introduced to shorten the
life span of a given module, mainly to ensure that learners focus their attention on that
specific module or subject. While working on a specific module, the learner is free from
other interferences, such as other subjects or module work (MoE 2012). According to
Grant (2001) and Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel (2011), block teaching is known to
have several advantages for students, for example, it improves students’ time management
skills and students feel increased motivation, commitment, and engagement during pro-
grammes conducted in intensive formats.
On the negative side, block teaching might be stressful, and some instructors might find
it hard to maintain energy due to the short-term and intense format of the block courses
(Grant 2001; Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel 2011). Intensive teaching formats require
careful organisation, adequate preparation, and varied teaching approaches. Instructors
tend to prefer to teach in traditional timeframes (which are non-modular), because the
teaching time is less intense. Besides this, there is not enough time during the intensive
schedule to organise and confirm activities and provide feedback to students. A respon-
dent in Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel’s (2011) study said the following with regard to
the modular curricula:
University education can never be satisfactory or useful through the current modular form of
curriculum. It does not give a chance to students for a much wider reading and research par-
ticularly in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. It narrows down the univer-
sity education. (p. 80)

When a new programme begins, there may be challenges faced, such as the efficacy of
implementation. A change in practice requires a change in behaviour, skill, attitude, belief
and frequent ways that people work with one another. Particularly, the initial stage
requires strict follow-up. Thus, the main purpose of this study was to investigate the prac-
tices and challenges of modular/block teaching at public universities in the Amhara
regional state, Ethiopia. The study, therefore, attempted to give answers to the following
research questions:

(1). How is modular/block teaching learning practiced at government HEIs?

(2). Is there a difference in the attitudes of instructors and students on modular/block
teaching learning across colleges within the HEIs?
(3). What are the challenges that instructors and students face in the practice of modular/
block teaching and learning?
(4). What are the possible mechanisms that could be used to address improving the quality
of modular/block teaching?
4 A. A. SEWAGEGN AND B. M. DIALE

Methodology
Design of the study
The main purpose of the study was to investigate the practices and challenges of modular/
block teaching and learning at government universities in a state in Ethiopia. To achieve
this, a descriptive survey design was used. A survey (questionnaire) was undertaken to
explore the prevalence of different experiences of the new pedagogic approach, and inter-
views were used to understand these experiences in greater depth. Therefore, both quan-
titative and qualitative approaches (De Vos et al. 2005) were used.

Study site and participants

Bahir Dar, Debre Markos, and Debre Tabour Universities were purposively selected
from seven government universities found in the Amhara regional state, Ethiopia.
Instructors and students from these universities were the participants of this study.
Specifically, instructors and students from the colleges of Social Science and Huma-
nities (SSH), Natural and Computational Science (NCS), Business and Economics
(BE) and Health Science (HS) from these three universities participated in this
study. These four colleges were selected using purposive sampling because they were
implementing a modular/block teaching approach. Two departments were randomly
selected from different colleges in each university. Instructors and students from
each department were selected using a simple random sampling method. According
to Creswell (2012), when using simple random sampling, the researcher randomly
selects participants for the sample, so that any individual has an equal chance of
being selected from the population. In general, 278 instructors and 365 students
were selected from a total of 1035 instructors and 6733 students. This was based on
Cohen, Manion, and Morrison’s (2018, 206) sample size determination procedure
for random samples.
From the 278 questionnaires distributed to instructors, 151 were correctly completed
and returned. From the 365 questionnaires distributed to students, only 345 were correctly
completed and returned. In general, the response rate was 54.31% and 94.5% for instruc-
tors and students, respectively.
For the qualitative component of the study, 12 instructors were selected using conven-
ience sampling methods from the selected colleges of the three universities and semi-struc-
tured interviews were conducted with them. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison
(2018), convenient sampling is choosing the nearest individuals to serve as respondents
who are available and accessible at the time of data collection. Therefore, instructors
were selected for interviews due to their availability in their departments and the rich
information they had regarding modular/block teaching.

Instruments and data collection procedures

A questionnaire containing both closed and open-ended questions and semi-structured
interviews were employed to gather data pertinent to the study. A questionnaire is an
instrument which participants in a study complete and return to the researcher (Creswell
2012) and a semi-structured interview is one of the most dominant and widely used
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5

methods of data collection for qualitative studies (Bradford and Cullen 2012). The ques-
tionnaires were administered to instructors and students. In addition, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with instructors.
In the study, the questionnaire had two sections of items. The first section used closed
response items to explore the attitudes of instructors and students to the modular
approach. The second section was supplementary open-ended questions. The closed-
ended section for both groups used a 4-point Likert Scale ranging from one (strongly dis-
agree) to four (strongly agree). A total of 32 and 30 attitude items for instructors and stu-
dents respectively were developed and used. The minimum and maximum possible scores
for the instructors were 32 and 128, respectively. For the students, the minimum and
maximum possible scores were 30 and 120, respectively. If the attitude score was below
half (i.e. 64) it was indicative of a negative attitude and if it was above half, a positive atti-
tude. In the open-ended questions and interviews, items that invited respondents to list the
factors that affected modular/block teaching and possible suggestions to improve the
quality were included.
The questionnaires were pilot tested on 45 students and 10 instructors to ensure
reliability. Cronbach Alpha (internal consistency item analysis) was used to measure
reliability. The result was 0.58 and 0.76 and for the main data 0.78 and 0.86, respectively,
for instructors and students and these results signified an acceptable standard of reliability
for these instruments (George and Mallery 2016).

Data analysis
Descriptive (percentage and mean), inferential (chi-square, independent t-test and one-
way ANOVA) statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyse the data with the
help of SPSS. For comparing frequencies, it was decided to collapse the original 4-point
Likert scale into two categories (agree and disagree) to enhance clarity at the descriptive
analysis level, specifically for the percentage and chi-square test. Collapsing Likert
responses is acceptable when one wants to see a clearer pattern in the findings (Babbie
2010).

Results and discussion

The current practice of modular/block teaching
Even if a curriculum is harmonised at the national level, to some extent, there can still be
variations in the practice of modular/block teaching in different HEIs. This was the case
for the selected universities. At Debre Markos University, one course is given from 8 to
16 working days and in parallel, semester-based courses are given. At Debre Tabour Uni-
versity, a course using the modular/block approach is given from four to six weeks, in par-
allel with one or two semester-based courses. At Bahir Dar University, three to four
courses are given for two months with eight different assessments.
This implies that from university to university the practice of modular/block teaching is
different. Theoretically, the practice of modular/block teaching is student-centred, but
what is actually implemented in the classrooms is not; according to the respondents’
explanations, it is teacher-centred. From their response to the interview, instructors
6 A. A. SEWAGEGN AND B. M. DIALE

dominantly use teacher-centred method of teaching. Moreover, it is assumed that the

assessment practice is continuous and that students are assessed six to eight times includ-
ing the final exam. However, it is shallow according to the respondents’ comments.
Respondents from the colleges of Social Science and Humanities and Natural and Com-
putational Science to the interview indicated that the assessments used are more of tra-
ditional (paper and pencil tests only).

Attitude of instructors and students about modular/block teaching

The mean attitude score of instructors and students about modular/block teaching learn-
ing was 72.76 and 74.63, which was above the average mark of 64 and 60, respectively. This
indicated they had favourable attitudes (Table 1). However, there were differences across
colleges. The result of one-way ANOVA shows that there was a significant difference in
attitude regarding modular/block teaching across different colleges. That is, F(4, 147) =
22.660 for instructors and F(4, 341) = 36.447 for students; p < 0.05. Instructors and students
from the college of SSH and HS had better attitudes than the other two colleges, as the
multiple comparison shows in Table 2. That is, the result was in favour of instructors
and students from the SSH and HS college. The other groups did not differ significantly
from each other.

Influence of instructors’ demographic variables and trainings on their attitude

From the analysis, it was observed that instructors’ teaching experience and educational
status had no relation to their attitude toward modular approach teaching. This was
tested using one-way ANOVA. The results showed that there was no significant difference
in attitude among respondents of various teaching experience and educational back-
ground. That is, for teaching experience F(4, 146) = 0.570, p > 0.05 and for educational
status F(4, 146) = 0.727, p > 0.05.
Most (77.5%) instructors had taken in-service pedagogical training but only 45.8%
had taken pedagogical training during their stay in universities. To see whether there
was a significant difference in attitude about modular approach teaching with differences
in pedagogy courses taken in university and in-service pedagogical training taken, t-test
was used. In all cases, significant mean differences were not observed (t(df = 149) = 0.809

Table 1. Overall attitude score of instructors and students.

Participant colleges Frequency (f) Mean St. deviation
Instructors SSH 53 78.15 13.96
BE 26 62.85 9.52
NCS 39 62.87 7.65
HEALTH 33 83.76 18.63
Total 151 72.76 15.84
Students SSH 98 85.07 11.11
BE 84 69.40 12.99
NCS 85 68.65 11.01
HEALTH 78 73.64 13.50
Total 345 74.63 13.88
Note: For instructors the minimum score is 32, the maximum score is 128 and the average/bench mark is 64.
For students the minimum score is 30, the maximum score is 120 and the average/bench mark is 60.
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

Table 2. Multiple comparisons to see variation in attitude by using Tukey method.

Participant college
A B Mean difference (A–B) Sig.
For instructors SSH BE 15.305* 0.029
NCS 15.279* 0.025
Health –5.607 0.228
BE NCS –0.026 1.000
Health –20.911* 0.000
NCS Health –20.886* 0.000
For students SSH BE 15.667* 0.000
NCS 16.424* 0.000
Health 11.430* 0.000
BE NCS 0.785 0.977
Health –4.236* 0.012
NCS Health –4.994* 0.045
Note: A and B indicates the categories/levels of participant colleges.
* = there is significant difference, p < 0.05.

and 0.098, p > 0.05). Neither in-service training nor pedagogy courses had a significant
effect on instructors’ attitude towards modular/block teaching.

Different issues in the practice of modular approach teaching learning

The majority of respondent instructors (72.2%) disagreed with the policy of using a
modular approach to teach students. Only 27.8% of the respondents showed their prefer-
ence to deliver a course using the modular system. A Chi-squared test showed that this
difference was significant (x2 = 29.278, with df = 1and p < 0.05). From this, one can under-
stand that more instructors preferred the non-modular, more traditional approach to
teaching. The variation of their preference was due to the variation in relation to the
appropriateness of modularisation/block teaching across different colleges. The majority
of the respondents in the BE and NCS disagreed that modular/block teaching was appro-
priate in their field of study. However, the majority of respondents from the SSH (56.6%)
and HS (78.8%) colleges showed their agreement in relation to the appropriateness of
modular/block teaching in their field of study. This finding is supported by Grant
(2001) who states that block courses work well for humanities and social science
courses. Overall the majority of the respondents that is, 87 (57.6%) disagreed on the
appropriateness of modular/block teaching in relation to their field of study.
Most of the instructors (79.5%) agreed that a modular approach helps students to con-
centrate on one subject at a time. The Chi-square (x2 ) test for this item indicated that there
was statistically significant difference between the rating pattern of their responses (x2 =
52.457; with df = 1 and p < 0.05). Conversely, the majority of respondents rejected the idea
that modular/block teaching was appropriate for teaching practical skills, for integrating
theory and practice, and for making learning credible and realistic (74.5%, 73.5%, and
74.9%, respectively) (Table 3).
Curriculum specialists and previous studies indicate that active learning is vital for
effective teaching and learning to take place (Grosser 2007). However, as the results of
this study showed, practicing active learning in modular teaching is difficult. Most of
the respondents disagreed that modular/block teaching helps instructors to apply
student-centred teaching methodology (49%), helps students to develop self-learning
8 A. A. SEWAGEGN AND B. M. DIALE

habits (53%) and makes teaching and learning cooperative (51.6%). Instructors also dis-
agreed on the statements that with a modular approach, students’ participation is high
(68.3%), students’ initiation to do tasks in groups is high (58%) and students’ interaction
is high (68.3%). Since modular/block teaching has a tight schedule as compared to the tra-
ditional method, it is difficult to implement active learning in a proper way (Table 4).
Assessment of students and the overall teaching learning process in the modular/block
system is expected to move towards student-centred and continuous assessment. As most
of the respondents indicated, in a modular approach, assessing students is a difficult task
(83.44% agreed). However, with its challenges, instructors used different types of assess-
ment methods (76.16% agreed) and 51.66% of the respondents agreed on the appropriate-
ness of the assessment methods used in the modular approach.
The majority of instructors reported that they assess the students’ performance con-
tinuously (70.86%) and give effective feedback after each assessment (60.26%). With
regard to the results students get, most of the instructors (62.9%) agreed that the
modular approach helps students to obtain better grades, but the system does not make
them knowledgeable (Table 5).

Challenges that instructors and students face in the practice of modular/block

teaching learning
Shortage of time
The participants indicated that the contents of the course and time allocated do not match
each other. As most instructors agreed, they use their time effectively (66.9%) but the time
given is not adequate to complete one course (82.78%). In addition, with the limited time
given most of the instructors said that they are forced to use active learning methods.
However, it is known that using a student-centred approach compared to traditional
lecture methods is time-consuming (Table 6).
For the open-ended questions, most instructors from different colleges of the univer-
sities raised a shortage of time as a major problem in the modular approach to teaching.
One of the interviewees said the following about the time issue:
Finishing courses within eight (for two credits) or 12 (for three credits) or 16 (for four credit)
days is physically challenging. Students fail to cope with the lessons within the short period.
The time given for practical/skill courses is not enough, so it is difficult to align the theoretical
concept with the practical. Therefore, most students face a great challenge to digest the course
within the specific period.

Table 3. The advantages of modular/block teaching.

Level of
No Statement agreement f % x2
1 Modular/block teaching helps students to concentrate on one subject Agree 120 79.5 52.457*
at a time Disagree 31 20.5
2 Modular/block teaching helps to give high emphasis for practical skills Agree 29 26.5 57.278*
Disagree 122 74.5
3 In modular/block teaching, the theory and practice can go hand-in- Agree 40 26.5 33.384*
hand Disagree 111 73.5
4 Modular/block teaching makes learning credible/realistic Agree 38 25.2 37.25*
Disagree 113 74.9
* = there is significant difference, p < 0.05.
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9

Table 4. Active learning in modular/block teaching.

Level of
No Statement agreement f % x2
1 Modular/block teaching helps teachers to apply student-centred Agree 77 51 0.026
teaching methodology Disagree 74 49
2 In modular/block teaching, there is cooperative teaching and learning Agree 73 48.4 0.166
Disagree 78 51.6
3 In modular/block teaching, students’ participation is high Agree 63 41.7 4.139*
Disagree 88 68.3
4 In modular/block teaching, students’ initiation to do tasks in group is high Agree 52 42 2.711
Disagree 89 58
5 In modular/block teaching, students’ interaction is high Agree 63 41.7 4.139*
Disagree 88 68.3
6 Modular/block teaching encourages team work Agree 75 49.7 0.007
Disagree 76 50.3
7 Modular/block teaching helps students to develop self-learning habit Agree 71 47 0.536
Disagree 80 53
* = there is significant difference, p < 0.05.

Table 5. Assessment practice in modular approach teaching.

Level of
No. Statement agreement f % x2
1 Assessing students in modular/block teaching is simple Agree 25 16.56 67.56*
Disagree 126 83.44
2 In modular/block teaching, I use various types of assessment techniques Agree 115 80.7 41.33*
Disagree 36 19.3
3 The assessment techniques used in modular/block teaching are appropriate Agree 78 51.66 0.17
Disagree 73 48.34
4 In modular/block teaching, I assess the students’ performance continuously Agree 107 70.86 26.28*
Disagree 44 29.14
5 In modular/block teaching, I give effective feedback after each assessment Agree 91 60.26 6.36*
Disagree 60 39.74
6 Modular/block teaching helps students to get better grade Agree 95 62.9 10.07*
Disagree 56 37.1
* = there is significant difference, p < 0.05

Table 6. Time issue in modular approach.

Level of
No. Statement agreement f % x2
1 The time given to complete one course through Agree 26 17.22 64.907*
modular/block teaching is adequate Disagree 125 82.78
2 I use my time effectively in modular/block teaching learning process Agree 101 66.89 17.225*
Disagree 50 33.11
* = there is significant difference, p < 0.05.

In general, due to time limitations, most instructors are unable to cover all the course
content sufficiently, to check students understanding of a lesson, apply different assess-
ment techniques, read and prepare updated and advanced concepts and deliver them to
the class, prepare teaching materials due to the routine work of preparing tests, evaluate
the assessment tasks on time and give feedback in general to assess and re-assess. Accord-
ing to Melaku (2010), shortage of time is an obstacle to active learning. However, if the
time given for a certain course is appropriate, the students can understand and digest
the course fruitfully. Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel (2011) found that instructors tend
10 A. A. SEWAGEGN AND B. M. DIALE

to prefer to teach in the traditional timeframes, because the teaching time is less intense.
There is little time during the intensive schedule to organise and confirm activities and
provide feedback to students.

High workload
High workload of instructors affects the quality of the instructional process. In the three
universities, modular/block courses are given within different time intervals. For example,
in Debre Markos University 2, 3 and 4 credit hour courses are given for 8, 12 and 16
working day blocks, respectively. The last day is reserved for a final exam. Credit hours
are the number of classroom hours per week throughout a semester or 16 weeks.
However, at Debre Markos University, in their modular/block teaching approach, two
credit hour courses are given for 32 classroom hours for eight days, three credit hour
courses are given for 48 classroom hours for twelve days and four credit hour courses
are given for 64 classroom hours for 16 days. Within these time periods, the instructors
are busy with different activities. The same is true for other university instructors as
they explained in their interviews. As 80.5% of the respondent instructors agreed, teaching
in the modular approach ensures that instructors are busy and 70% of the respondent
instructors agreed that it creates a heavy workload. For example, the instructors have to
deliver the course using active learning methods, assess students continuously using mul-
tiple assessment techniques, give feedback, and reassess when the students score below half
for each assessment. All these activities are accomplished within the specified time interval
for the course. This creates the problem of not being able to implement the teaching and
learning processes efficiently. According to Melaku (2010), workload on teachers is an
obstacle to implementing active learning. One respondent said the following about the
workload as a result of the modular approach teaching: ‘It makes me stand in one
room for more than five hours a day with familiar faces.’
Another instructor had the following to say:
In the modular system, instructors are overburdened to give lectures, prepare for classes, and
are unable to study their student’s real potential/performance and there is fatigue because the
instructor stands in one class for a long time per day for lecturing and assessment activities.

The same instructor said that most students are overburdened by having to continually
attend lectures, simultaneously having to study every day and for weeks on end, along
with having continuous assessment tasks, exams or re-exams, resulting in them being
unable to withstand the fatigue/tiredness.
Solomon, Ayalew, and Daniel (2011) also found that block teaching might be stressful
and some instructors might find it hard to maintain productive energy levels. Intensive
teaching formats require careful organisation, adequate preparation, and varied teaching
approaches (Table 7).

Table 7. Workload in modular approach teaching.

No Statement Level of agreement f % x2
1 Modular/block teaching makes me busy Agree 118 80.7 47.848*
Disagree 33 19.3
2 Modular/block teaching creates workloads on instructors Agree 106 70.19 24.643*
Disagree 45 29.81
* = there is significant difference, p < 0.05.
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11

Large class size

Large class sizes are a major challenge in the practice of modular teaching. The difficulty
resides in applying active learning and multiple assessment methods. One language
instructor wrote the following about the problem of large class sizes:
In language class, for example teaching a basic writing course for a large number of students
in one class is extremely difficult. The difficult part is the assessment process. That is, for large
number of students per class, it is difficult to give appropriate feedback for each student on
time. Even this is difficult in the semester-based approach.

Large class size was a problem for instructors in all three universities. As most instructors
stated, the problem is serious with regard to the assessment of students. It is difficult to
check the understanding of individual students of a certain course and it is difficult to
give timely and appropriate feedback for each student. According to Adula (2008), in
order to apply active learning, the number of students in a given class should be manage-
able so that instructors will be able to identify each student by name, assess individual stu-
dents, use multiple assessment techniques, give feedback to students on time and ensure
that all students get a chance to express their views. Furthermore, the number of students
and the size of the classroom should cohere, so that the instructor can move freely within
the group and guide students’ activities.
However, from the researcher’s knowledge and as reported by instructors these con-
ditions are not observed by the universities. In most classes, the number of students is
above 50. According to Teshome (2010), large class size (large number of students in
one class) is the main challenge to teaching in HEIs. In relation to this, Biggs and Tang
(2007) note that, large classes need careful preparation and require effective and quite
specific management skills. Biggs and Tang (2007) also add that, the larger the class,
the slower things are completed.

Lack of resources
The modular approach requires that teaching and learning resources should be ready
before implementation. As most respondent instructors reported, a shortage of resources
is one of the major challenges that they face in the implementation of the modular/block
teaching and learning. The following are the challenges that most instructors face in
relation to resources: shortage of relevant reference materials for library work and
home-based activities; shortage of chemicals and instruments for laboratory courses;
and lack of educational facilities like copiers, printers and shortage of computer labs. As
Adula (2008) verifies, the problem of the shortage of resources is common in almost all
higher institutions in the country. This situation has been a serious obstacle to fully realis-
ing the objectives of teaching and learning in HEIs. Inadequacy of learning materials is the
most prevalent factor negatively affecting teaching in higher education (Melaku 2010;
Teshome 2010).

Weak academic background of students

Since modular/block courses are given within very tight programmes, understanding a
course and being fruitful within this specified timeframe is challenging. As most instruc-
tors mentioned, the weak academic background of students is another challenge faced
12 A. A. SEWAGEGN AND B. M. DIALE

when using modular/block teaching. This is also a challenge for non-modular approaches
to teaching.
In addition, the students on their side listed a number of challenges that they faced in
the practice of modular/block teaching in the open-ended questionnaire:

. Unable to cover a course in the specified time and simply sitting for exams;
. There is no break for studying/reading;
. Failure to remember anything about the course after it has finished;
. Due to a large number of assessments, the students become stressed;
. There is an overlap on different tests/exams and the students become tense;
. Some instructors do not give effective feedback for each assessment;
. Shortage of resources like books, computers, internet access, and others.

Mechanisms to improve the quality of modular/block teaching

The following are the possible mechanisms suggested by instructors to improve the quality
of modular approach teaching in the interview:

. Instructors and students should discuss the problems they face in the process of the
modular teaching approach and should find solutions in collaboration with the con-
cerned bodies (i.e. department and college officials, the university management, minis-
try of higher education, and others).
. Modular/block approach teaching needs more modern technology and different facili-
ties inside and outside the classroom to properly implement it. Even the class size
should not be more than 30–40 in a modular class, but in our experience, there are
50–70 students in one class and that is the main hindrance for classroom management.
Class size needs to be reduced to a manageable level. Besides that, the gap between the
courses given (breaktime) should be taken into consideration.
. Enough time should be allocated to complete one course. The time allocation should be
reshuffled from courses of memorisation to those that are skill-oriented.
. Sufficient essential facilities should be supplied in a timely way.

Conclusion
From the study, it is observed that instructors and students had a favourable attitude
toward modular/block teaching learning. However, a significant difference across colleges
was observed and instructors and students from the colleges of SSH and HS rated the
approach more favourably than the other colleges. Others demographic variables of
instructors’ had no effect on their attitude toward modular approach teaching. Owing
to the different problems in the practice of their teaching, the majority of the instructors
preferred the non-modular approach to the modular/block approach. The variation of
their preferences was in relation to the appropriateness of modularisation across
different colleges with regard to their field of study.
When using the modular/block teaching approach, one course is given without the
interference of other courses – this helps students to concentrate on one subject at a
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13

time. However, the time given does not seem to be sufficient to digest the course efficiently.
The system does not emphasise practical skills and theory and practice remain separate,
which does not make learning credible. In general, it is likely difficult to apply an active
learning methodology because of time limitations. Assessing students in a modular
approach also becomes a difficult task and instructors use various types of assessment
techniques to try and give effective feedback after each assessment. However, it is often
superficial and serves merely as a formality. The assessment system used helps students
to get better grades but does not make them knowledgeable.
The major challenges that instructors faced at these universities in the practice of the
modular/block approach to teaching and learning were: shortage of time, large class
sizes, lack of resources, high workload/teaching load and weak academic background of
students. To address the challenges that affect the proper implementation of this teaching
learning approach, concerned bodies (university officials, ministry of education, head of
departments and others) should find immediate solutions for the problems identified,
specifically with regard to time and resource shortages, high teaching loads and students’
academic backgrounds. It is also better if possible, to make some courses semester-based
according to the nature of the course and for instructors to then apply active learning
methods and continuous assessment, since this approach allows for more time. In con-
clusion, to make the teaching more effective using this approach, the observed challenges
should be addressed.

Acknowledgments
We would like to take the opportunity to thank Debre Markos University for the financial support
to accomplish this research and also the instructors and students who participated in the research
process.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by Debre Markos University.

ORCID
Abatihun A. Sewagegn http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0147-5190
Boitumelo M. Diale http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2007-4416

References
Adula, B. 2008. “Application of Higher Diploma Program Training Skills in Classroom Instruction:
The Case of Education Faculty, Jimma University.” Ethiopian Journal Education and Sciences 4
(1): 51–72. doi:10.4314/ejesc.v4i1.42992.
Babbie, E. R. 2010. The Basis of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Biggs, J., and C. Tang. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 3rd ed. Poland: Open
University Press.
 14 A. A. SEWAGEGN AND B. M. DIALE

Bradford, S., and F. Cullen. 2012. Research and Research Methods for Youth Practitioners. London:
Routledge.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2018. Research Methods in Education. 8th ed. New York:
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and
Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
De Vos, A. S., H. Strydom, C. B. Fouche, and C. S. L. Delport. 2005. Research at Grass Roots. For the
Social Sciences and Human Service Professions. 3rd ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Desta, D. 2004. “Observations and Reflections of the Higher Education Teachers on the Quality of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Ethiopia.” The Ethiopian Journal of Higher
Education 1: 63–81. http://ejol.aau.edu.et/index.php/EJHE/article/view/238.
Espinosa, A. A. 2009. Comparative Efficiency of Modular Method in the Teaching of High School
Chemistry. College of Education, University of the Philippines, Diliman. Course Requirement
for EDRE 201. https://www.scribd.com/doc/19604998/.
Gebremeskel, H. H. 2014. “Influence of the Bologna Process on African Higher Education:
Ethiopian Higher Education in Focus.” International Journal of Research Studies in Education
3 (4): 85–98.
George, D., and P. Mallery. 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics 23 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference.
New York: Routledge.
Grant, D. B. 2001. “Using Block Courses for Teaching Logistics.” International Journal of
Distribution and Logistics Management 31 (7/8): 574–584.
Grosser, M. 2007. “Effective Teaching: Linking Teaching to Learning Functions.” South African
Journal of Education 27 (1): 37–52.
Jimma, T. T., and W. M. Tarekegn. 2016. “The Prevailing Practices and Challenges of Curriculum
Reform in Ethiopian Higher Education: Views and Responses from Within.” Australian Journal
of Teacher Education 41: 10. doi:10.14221/ajte.2016v41n10.6.
Melaku, G. 2010. “Teaching, Learning and Assessment Practices in Ethiopian Higher Education
Institutions: The Quality Aspect in Focus.” Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on
Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs) in Ethiopia). St. Mary’s University College printing
press, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2147.
MoE. 2012. A Guideline for Modularization to Ethiopian Higher Education Institutions. Addis
Ababa: Higher Education Strategy Centre (HESC).
Sadig, S. 2014. “Effectiveness of Modular Approach Teaching at University Level.” Journal of
Education and Practice 5 (17): 103–109.
Solomon, A., S. Ayalew, and T. Daniel. 2011. “Academic Staff’s Views and Practices of Modular
Course Delivery: Graduate Program at Addis Ababa University in Focus.” Ethiopian Journal
of Education 21 (2): 63–105. http://ejol.aau.edu.et/index.php/EJE/article/view/204.
Teshome, N. 2010. “Quality of Academic Staff in Ethiopian Higher Education: Views of Students,
Department Chairs and Deans of Faculties.” Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on
Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs) in Ethiopia). St. Mary’s University College printing
press, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2176.
W/Yohannes, D., A. Abera Habte, A. Tafesse, and T. Buraka. 2014. “Raising the Awareness of
Learners Towards Modularization: A Case Study of Wolaita Sodo University.” Ethiopia.
Journal of Education and Practice 5 (23): 160–166.

View publication stats