The Effectiveness of Buddy Support System Implementation among Science Teachers: The Case of Malaysia

Asian Social Science 03/2010; DOI: 10.5539/ass.v6n4p122
Source: DOAJ


The biggest challenge that is being faced by the Malaysian Education scenario occurred when shifting of the Malaysia’s National Science Curriculum from the use of Malay language to English as the medium of instruction. Analogically, varied steps and measures were being put into action to sufficiently groom the available teachers towards fulfilling the challenges. One of the programs is Buddy Support System that was aimed as a peer support system or program to apprehend and provide the necessary avenue for the science teachers to adequately equip themselves towards competency in teaching of science. Therefore this study aims at identifying the effectiveness of professional development among the science teachers in Malaysia under the implementation of the Buddy System in secondary school teachers. A total of 480 science teachers were randomly selected from 160 secondary schools throughout the Northern part of Peninsular Malaysia. Data were collected using questionnaires adapted from Lee (2006) to measure the management of the Buddy System Program. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the Buddy Support Program was measured using questionnaires from Isa (2000). The findings of the study indicate that the level of management and impact of the implementation on the Buddy System Program in general are at the mediocre level. Apart from that, a positive relation and significant (r = 0.73; p<0.05) correlation was found between the perceived effectiveness of the Buddy System Program and the management of the implementation of the Buddy System Program. Besides, the findings also denote the existence of significant influence between the readiness, training, application and consolidation upon the perceived effectiveness of the Buddy System Program in Malaysia.

1 Follower
79 Reads
  • Source
    • "This is particularly informative to current online educational settings where a one-on-one pair-learning system operates. Although the buddy system has been proven in terms of its effectiveness to motivate people to learn and help people master materials in offline settings (e.g., Abdullah et al., 2010; Thomson, 2010), it might not function in the same way in an online setting where a large group of users share materials and help each other. Instead of the traditional way of pairing two users as exclusive buddies, an in-group-based team assignment might effectively encourage learners to contribute more to the group in the context of an online learning community (Levine & Crowther, 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Individuals are more likely to obtain information and support from online health communities than offer help to other users (Fox & Jones, 2009; Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004). The current study attempts to resolve this problem of under-contribution by proposing two theory-based persuasive strategies—a specific request in the form of an online buddy and collective community feedback in the form of bandwagon cues. A 2 (online buddy: absence vs. presence) by 2 (bandwagon cues: weak vs. strong) between-participants experiment tested the effects of these strategies on psychological outcomes, including perceived responsibility, social presence, sense of community, and perceived helpfulness, as well as their posting attitudes, posting intentions, and website attitudes, across two sessions. Contrary to expectations, we found that the assignment of online buddies in a health community forum leads to negative psychological and behavioral consequences, especially in the absence of strong community feedback. Furthermore, the online buddy feature interacts with bandwagon cues to activate different cognitive processes, leading to differential interpretation of the meanings of those bandwagon cues—either as compliments (in the presence of online buddy) or as unreliable feedback (in the absence of online buddy). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
    Computers in Human Behavior 08/2014; 37:319–333. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.039 · 2.69 Impact Factor


79 Reads
Available from