Modular/Block teaching: practices and challenges at higher education institutions of Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to investigate the practices and challenges of modular/block teaching in higher education institutions of Ethiopia. A descriptive survey design was used with instructors and students. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were used to gather data and analysed quantitatively (descriptive and inferential statistics) and qualitatively (thematic analysis). The results showed variations in practice across different 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.

KEYWORDS:

• Active learning
• attitude
• challenge
• instructors
• modular/block teaching
• practice

Introduction

A country’s development is substantially dependent on the contribution made by its education 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).

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 independent 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 curriculum 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, therefore, 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 modularisation. 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 important 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 undergraduate 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 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 advantages 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 programmes 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 respondent 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 particularly in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. It narrows down the university 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 practices 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?

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 interviews were used to understand these experiences in greater depth. Therefore, both quantitative 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 Humanities (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 instructors and students, respectively.

For the qualitative component of the study, 12 instructors were selected using convenience sampling methods from the selected colleges of the three universities and semi-structured 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 methods of data collection for qualitative studies (Bradford and Cullen 2012). The questionnaires 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 disagree) to four (strongly agree). A total of 32 and 30 attitude items for instructors and students 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 attitude. 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 University, a course using the modular/block approach is given from four to six weeks, in parallel 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 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 including the final exam. However, it is shallow according to the respondents’ comments. Respondents from the colleges of Social Science and Humanities and Natural and Computational Science to the interview indicated that the assessments used are more of traditional (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 learning 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.

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.

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

	Participant college		Mean difference (A–B)	Sig.
	A	B
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.

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 background. 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 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 preference to deliver a course using the modular system. A Chi-squared test showed that this difference was significant (${\chi }^2$= 29.278, with df = 1and p < 0.05). From this, one can understand 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 appropriate 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 concentrate on one subject at a time. The Chi-square (${\chi }^2$) test for this item indicated that there was statistically significant difference between the rating pattern of their responses (${\chi }^2$= 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).

Table 3. The advantages of modular/block teaching.

No	Statement	Level of agreement	f	%	${\chi }^2$
1	Modular/block teaching helps students to concentrate on one subject at a time	Agree	120	79.5	52.457*
		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-hand	Agree	40	26.5	33.384*
		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.

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 habits (53%) and makes teaching and learning cooperative (51.6%). Instructors also disagreed 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 traditional method, it is difficult to implement active learning in a proper way (Table 4).

Table 4. Active learning in modular/block teaching.

No	Statement	Level of agreement	f	%	${\chi }^2$
1	Modular/block teaching helps teachers to apply student-centred teaching methodology	Agree	77	51	0.026
		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.

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 assessment methods (76.16% agreed) and 51.66% of the respondents agreed on the appropriateness of the assessment methods used in the modular approach.

The majority of instructors reported that they assess the students’ performance continuously (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).

Table 5. Assessment practice in modular approach teaching.

No.	Statement	Level of agreement	f	%	${\chi }^2$
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

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).

Table 6. Time issue in modular approach.

No.	Statement	Level of agreement	f	%	${\chi }^2$
1	The time given to complete one course through modular/block teaching is adequate	Agree	26	17.22	64.907*
		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.

For the open-ended questions, most instructors from different colleges of the universities 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.

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 assessment 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. According 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 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 multiple 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	%	${\chi }^2$
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.

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 manageable so that instructors will be able to identify each student by name, assess individual students, 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 conditions 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 realising 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 instructors mentioned, the weak academic background of students is another challenge faced 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 concerned bodies (i.e. department and college officials, the university management, ministry of higher education, and others).

• Modular/block approach teaching needs more modern technology and different facilities 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 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 conclusion, 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.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Debre Markos University.