Perceived Effectiveness of KPT-PACE Instructional Materials in Fostering Communication Competence

Authors

  • Mazlin Mohamed Mokhtar

    Faculty of Language and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjung Malim 35900, Malaysia
  • Farah Natchiar Mohd Khaja

    Faculty of Language and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjung Malim 35900, Malaysia
  • Noor Alhusna Madzlan

    Faculty of Language and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjung Malim 35900, Malaysia
  • Siti Khairani Qalbi Ahamad

    Faculty of Language and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjung Malim 35900, Malaysia
  • Arif Hakimi Zulazli

    Faculty of Language and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjung Malim 35900, Malaysia
  • Amirul Aziq Sua'if

    Faculty of Language and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjung Malim 35900, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i12.10124
Received: 21 May 2025 | Revised: 29 May 2025 | Accepted: 11 July 2025 | Published Online: 10 November 2025

Abstract

This study investigates university students' perceptions of the KPT-PACE instructional materials for developing their communication skills. Using a quantitative approach, data were collected from 112 students across different academic disciplines who had experienced the KPT-PACE program. The research specifically examined the materials' effectiveness in three key communication domains: speaking, listening, and vocabulary. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were applied to interpret the students' feedback. The findings indicate that students viewed the instructional materials positively, with speaking skills receiving the highest mean score (M = 3.33), followed by listening (M = 3.15) and vocabulary (M = 3.14). Each domain demonstrated statistically significant results above the neutral value of 3 (p < 0.001), suggesting that students perceived notable improvement in their communication abilities through the use of these materials. Among the three areas, speaking emerged as the most impacted, reflecting the strength of the materials in promoting oral proficiency. Overall, the results support the view that the KPT-PACE instructional materials are effective tools for enhancing communication skills among university learners. These insights may guide future improvements in curriculum design and material development, contributing to more targeted and impactful communication instruction in higher education settings.

Keywords:

Instructional Materials; Students'Perception; Communication Skills; Challenges; Effective Method

References

[1] Ramalingam, S., Yunus, M.M., Hashim, H., 2022. Exploring English as a second language educators’ challenges of teaching communication skills in blended learning environments: A Malaysian scenario. Journal of Positive School Psychology. 6(2), 1388–1405. Available from: http://journalppw.com (cited 1 April 2025).

[2] Fuadi, M.H., Ramadhanita, F.F., Novita, L., 2024. Teacher professional development in the digital age: The role of communication science in improving teaching skills. Melas Journal of Education. 1(1), 13–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/melas.v1i1.11525

[3] Sudarso, H., Nurhikmah, A., Deiniatur, M., et al., 2024. Analyzing the use of project-based learning in English education: Enhancing student engagement and communication skills. Edu Cendikia: Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan. 4(1), 161–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47709/educendikia.v4i01.4305

[4] Lu, J., 2024. A research on the effect of introducing speeches in English classes on improving oral English ability under the background of digital teaching. Pacific International Journal. 7(2), 202–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55014/pij.v7i2.603

[5] Shah, S.R., Au Yong Lyn, A., Morlet, G.M.A., et al., 2024. The Impact of Student-centred learning in higher education: a systematic review. SAGE Open. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241240844

[6] Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman: New York, NY, USA.

[7] Reith-Hall, E., Au Yong Lyn, A., Morlet, G.M.A., et al., 2023. Communication skills training for improving outcomes in social work education: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 19(1), e1309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1309

[8] Ní Shé, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., et al., 2022. Integrating design thinking into instructional design: The #OpenTeach case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 38(1), 33–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6667

[9] Braun, E., 2021. Performance-based assessment of students’ communication skills. International Journal of Chinese Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/22125868211006202

[10] Cayabas Jr., J.P., Sumeg-Ang, D.A., 2023. Challenges and interventions in developing instructional materials: Perspectives of public school teachers in basic education. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies. 6(4), 849–855. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v6i4.2059

[11] Zimmerman, B.J., 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice. 41(2), 64–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

[12] Eyler, J., Giles Jr., D.E., 1999. Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA.

[13] Alshumaimeri, Y.A., Alhumud, A.M., 2021. EFL students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of virtual classrooms in enhancing communication skills. English Language Teaching. 14(11), 80–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n11p80

[14] Kusmawan, A., Rahman, R., Anis, N., et al., 2024. The relationship between teacher involvement in curriculum development and student learning outcomes. International Journal of Educatio Elementaria and Psychologia. 2(1), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.70177/ijeep.v2i1.1890

[15] Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E. (Eds.), 2016. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, 4th ed. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA.

[16] Ullah, A., Anwar, S., 2020. The effective use of information technology and interactive activities to improve learner engagement. Education Sciences. 10(12), 349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120349

[17] Rossi, I.V., De Lima, J.D., Sabatke, B., et al., 2021. Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID-19 pandemic. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education. 49(6), 888–903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21574

[18] Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., et al., 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek 2011), Tampere, Finland, 28–30 September 2011; pp. 9–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

[19] Kolb, A.Y., Kolb, D.A., 2005. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 4(2), 193–212. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566

[20] Robin, B.R., 2008. Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Practice. 47(3), 220–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916

[21] Bailenson, J., 2018. Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA.

[22] Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., Brønnick, K., 2013. Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research. 58, 61–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002

[23] Staker, H., Horn, M.B., 2012. Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute: San Mateo, CA, USA.

[24] Walkington, C., 2013. Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. 105(4), 932–945. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0031882

[25] Kellner, D., Share, J., 2007. Critical media literacy is not an option. Learning Inquiry. 1(1), 59–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11519-007-0004-2

[26] Paris, D., Alim, H.S. (Eds.), 2017. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA.

[27] Nieto, S., 2010. The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities, 10th anniversary ed. Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA.

[28] Hall, E.T., 1976. Beyond Culture. Anchor Books: Garden City, NY, USA.

[29] Gay, G., 2010. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed. Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA.

[30] Nicol, D.J., Macfarlane-Dick, D., 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education. 31(2), 199–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

[31] Lucas, S.E., 2019. The Art of Public Speaking, 13th ed. McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA.

[32] Tailab, M.M.K., Marsh, N.Y., 2020. Use of self-assessment of video recording to raise students’ awareness of their oral presentation skills. Higher Education Studies. 10(1), 16–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n1p16

[33] Barrett, A., Pack, A., 2023. Not quite eye to A.I.: student and teacher perspectives on GenAI in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 20, 59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0

[34] Hyland, K., 2018. Genre and Second Language Writing. In: Liontas, J.I., International Association, T., DelliCarpini, M. (eds.). The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching: Hoboken, NJ, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0535

[35] Graham, S., Perin, D., 2007. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 99(3), 445–476. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

[36] Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.J., 1999. Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice. 38(2), 67–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834

[37] Jewitt, C., 2008. Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education. 32(1), 241–267. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586

[38] Kwek, D., Teng, S.S., Lee, Y.J., et al., 2020. Policy and pedagogical reforms in Singapore: Taking Stock, Moving Forward. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 40(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1841430

[39] Sahlberg, P., 2015. Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA.

[40] Nagatomo, D.H., 2012. Exploring Japanese University English Teachers’ Professional Identity. Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK.

[41] Kizilcec, R.F., Chen, M., Jasińska, K.K., et al., 2021. Mobile learning during school disruptions in Sub-Saharan Africa (Kenya case study). EJEL. 19(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211014860

Downloads

How to Cite

Mohamed Mokhtar, M., Mohd Khaja, F. N., Madzlan, N. A., Qalbi Ahamad, S. K., Zulazli, A. H., & Aziq Sua’if, A. (2025). Perceived Effectiveness of KPT-PACE Instructional Materials in Fostering Communication Competence. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(12), 624–636. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i12.10124

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 12 (December 2025): In progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Mazlin Mohamed Mokhtar, Farah Natchiar Mohd Khaja, Noor Alhusna Madzlan, Siti Khairani Qalbi Ahamad, Arif Hakimi Zulazli, Amirul Aziq Sua'if

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.