On the 22nd of August, I received an invitation via an email from the Malaysian Nuclear Agency as a speaker at the International Conference on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIR 2019), Kuala Lumpur, held on the 1st-3rd October 2019. Well, obviously the invitation came as a surprise because I could not relate any of my previous work to the word “nuclear”.
The title of my presentation…
Later I discovered from the PIC that the Agency was interested to know more about a paper I co-authored with my PhD student, Manvin Kaur entitled “Impact of smartphone: a review on positive and negative effects on students”. The paper, published in 2018, was based on Manvin’s review of past literature from 2010 to 2018, related to her project.
Me trying to make some points here….
My first thought was to ask Manvin to present her work at the conference, because I really felt that she should take the ownership of her work. Plus, it would be a good experience for her to share her doctoral project to the public. Apparently, the committee insisted that the supervisor was the one to present, and so with Manvin’s approval, I took up the slot for the talk.
Prof. Rodney Croft from the University of Wollongong asking me on how to measure “impact” in social sciences research…
The experience was an eye opener indeed, since most of the participants were experts who study the direct (and indirect) impact of radiations from the advancement of the latest technology, particularly 5G. It was a pleasure to receive positive remarks from the audience, for example from Prof. Dr. Alexander Lerchl from Jacobs University Bremen, Germany (who said that “I could relate your topic with what’s happening with my children…) and also from Dr. Chiyoji Ohkubo from Japan EMF Information Centre (who highlighted WHO has now acknowledged online games as an addiction…). And Prof. Rodney Croft from the University of Wollongong who asked me on how to measure “impact” in social sciences research.
A token of appreciation from the organising committee…
The first group meeting for “Reflective Brain” project was organised at DSP Lab yesterday. It was primarily meant for discussing the directions of the project that will be carried out by Fatini and Taha. We were joined by Dr Zuri and Dr Syahida.
Fatini presenting her literature review
Taha sharing the way he organised his literature review
During the discussion, Fatini shared her literature review on the concepts of reflection, the thinking process as well as the brain functioning related to reflections. Taha also shared his organisation of literature review. While I got the chance to share the initial conceptual framework adopted from Prof. Ombao’s talk during the short course in UTMKL last time.
We had a short course on EEG electrode placement and data acquisition yesterday (Sunday, 25 August 2019@Advanced Electronic Lab, P19A). We were joined by our colleagues from SKE and also our PhD students. The course started off with a talk delivered by AP Dr. Norlaili, the head of the lab. Among the topics covered by Dr. Norlaili were introduction to EEG signal, its source, the anatomy and functions of the human brain, as well as the rhythms of the brain.
Dr Laili delivering her talk
The next session was a hands-on one during which we were to produce a wire-made model of the EEG cap that help determining EEG channels positioning on the scalp.
Taha the handy-man is working on the model based on Sayyid’s head size…while Dr Syahida and Fatini assisting him….
Taha beaming with pride with the final product modelled by Sayyid…well obviously we had fun in the lab…
The remaining of the session were allocated on demos using the two versions of EEG – the Russian made (a new machine) and the Japanese produced (slightly seasoned one but still works brilliantly).
Tarmidzi showed us how to apply gels on the scalp….gels work as conductors…
Dr. Shikin explaining the signals to Taha and Tarmidzi…
I had the opportunity to attend a short course on “Big data analysis of neuroimaging and genetics” which was held on 17 August 2019, at UTMKL together with Dr. Zuri and Taha, his PhD student. Prominent researchers from the area delivered talks that focusing on how data obtained mainly through EEG and fMRI are being analysed.
The longer version of the course title
Prof. Ombao delivering his talks
The session started with talks by Prof. Hernando Ombao from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology talks on “Spectral methods for brain connectivity” and “Cross-dependence in multivariate time series”. His lectures covered the basics of brain images and signals as well as the related statistical analysis, which I found to be helpful in visualising my initial research idea. One important aspect I learned is that brain signaling helps in the characterisation and differentiation of brain patterns.
While listening to Prof Ombao’s talks I managed to draft the conceptual framework for Fatini’s PhD project.
This was followed by a talk by AP Dr Anqi Qiu from National University of Singapore (NUS) entitled “Phenotypes, genotypes & voxels: a playground next to a nuclear power plant”.
Dr. Fiecas sharing his experiences
The third presenter was Dr. Mark Fiecas from University of Minnesota whose talks entitled “A grouped beta process model for multivariate resting-state EEG microstate analysis on twins” and “Tutorial on fMRI preprocessing and analysis”. Among others, he shared his experience in collecting and analysing EEG and fMRI in studies involving identical and fraternal twins.
Dr. Cribben illustrating the brain signals
The next presenter was Dr. Ivor Cribben from Alberta School of Business, who talked about “Dynamic functional connectivity for human brain imaging data”. Among all the talks, we could closely relate our current project with Ivor’s presentation especially when he highlighted the task design of his research.
Dr. Ting highliting his points entitled “Deep Learning Methods for Brain Connectivity Networks”
The remaining lectures were delivered by UTM’s very own Dr. Chee-Ming Ting from SKBSK and Dr. David Degras from University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Dr. Degras explaining “Dynamic functional connectivity: A sparse group fused lasso approach”
Overall, it was a great course because it was participant-friendly one. We had the chance to consult the experts and all the talks were lively as the Q&A sessions were very informative. Well, one thing for sure now is having the regret for not venturing in neuropsychology last time….
Consulted Prof. Ombao during lunch break and here’s what he suggested….
Dr. Zuri with his current PhD student, Taha and his ex-student from Universiti Malaysia Perlis
Recently I was asked by the Deputy Director of CTL to give my views on the idea of incorporating research activities into teaching approach. One of the questions posed was: “Is university research good for teaching?”. Being true to my “researcher self”, I started to dig into the literature and revisit my past write-up on the development of student’s scholarship (i.e. scholarly thinking) as one of UTM’s revised graduate attributes. And so I managed to come up with a short summary about research/teaching nexus, on which I eventually derived my answer to the question:
Question 1: Is university research good for teaching?
The concept of research/teaching nexus emphasizes the importance of linking the two main core activities of a university i.e. research and teaching (Tight, 2016). To answer the question of whether university research is good for teaching requires one to refer to the literature.
Past literature suggested the benefits of teaching informed by research and this is especially in enhancing the student’s learning experience (Dekker & Wolff, 2016; Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Mägi & Beerkens, 2016; Walkington, 2015). Through research-based teaching approach, student engagement can be enhanced through their involvement in inquiry activities (Sproken-Smith et al., 2013) which nurture their scholarly thinking (Shanahan et al., 2015). Courses that integrate research into teaching have been found to enhance students’ understanding of research process such as problem identification, analytical data interpretation, and integration of practical theories (Fechheimer et al., 2011; Jenkins, Breen & Lindsey, 2007; Petrella & Jung, 2008; Willison & O’Regan, 2007).
The inclusion of research activities in the process learning and teaching can also encourage the involvement of students in active learning that leads to the development of self-determined and autonomous learners (Willison & O’Regan, 2007). This indirectly enhances students’ soft skills such as tolerance towards learning challenges, self-confidence and effective communication skills (de la Harpe & David, 2011; Hill & Walkington, 2012). These acquired skills are vital for student’s employability, while incorporating lifelong learning (Stappenbelt, 2013). Based on this brief literature review, I would say that university research is good for teaching.
My main references:
Dekker, H., & Wolff, S. W. (2016). Re-inventing research-based teaching and learning. In presentation at the meeting of the European Forum for Enhanced Collaboration in Teaching of the European University Association.
de la Harpe, B., & David, C. (2011). Major influences on the teaching and assessment of graduate attributes, Higher Education Research & Development: Journal of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, 31(4), 493-510.
Fechheimer, M., Webber, K., & Kleiber, P. B. (2011). How well do undergraduate research programs promote engagement and success of students?. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 156-163.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. The Higher Education Academy
Hill, J., & Walkington, H. (2012, October). “One step closer to the real world”: Engaging students in authentic research dissemination beyond the curriculum. Paper presented at the Inter- national Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Conference, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jenkins, A., R. Breen & R. Lindsay (2007). Reshaping Teaching in Higher Education. Linking Teaching with Research. London: Routledge.
Johnson, W.B., Behling, L.L., Miller, P. & Vandermaas- Peeler, M. (2015): Undergraduate Research Mentoring: Obstacles and Opportunities, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126167.
Mägi, E., & Beerkens, M. (2016). Linking research and teaching: Are research-active staff members different teachers?. Higher Education, 72(2), 241-258.
Shanahan, J.O., Ackley-Holbrook, E., Hall, E., Stewart, K. & Walkington, H. (2015). Ten Salient Practices of Undergraduate Research Mentors: A Review of the Literature, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,
Petrella, J. K., & Jung, A. P. (2008). Undergraduate Research: Importance, Benefits, and Challenges. International Journal of Exercise Science, 1(3), 91–95.
Spronken-Smith, Rachel, Jason Brodeur, Tara Kajaks, Martin Luck, Paula Myatt, An Verburgh, Helen Walkington, and Brad Wuetherick. (2013). Completing the research cycle: A framework for promoting dissemination of undergraduate research and inquiry. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 105-118.
Stappenbelt, B. (2013). The effectiveness of the teaching–research nexus in facilitating student learning. Engineering Education, 8(1), 111-121.
Tight, M. (2016). Examining the research/teaching nexus. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 293-311.
Walkington, H. (2015). Students as researchers: Supporting undergraduate research in the disciplines in higher education. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Willcoxson, L., Manning, M. L., Johnston, N., & Gething, K. (2011). Enhancing the Research-Teaching Nexus: Building Teaching-Based Research from Research-Based Teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 1-10.
Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development: Journal of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia, 26(4), 393–409.
Me as a doctoral research student at the working area of GSOE, UoB (circa 2008)
We have three furry babies in our family. Our boys, Buttercup and Blacky, and our girl, Mimi, mean the world to us. We adopted them when they were just a bunch of furry-balls back in 2012 (well except for Mimi; we found her in our car engine…). Now they are all in the 7th year of their lives – healthy, happy and enjoying life mostly as the apple of our eyes. Our “buah hati pengarang jantung” so to speak.
Kitam and Baby posing ala Brit-Indie rock band’s CD cover…
Buttercup, Blacky, and Mimi – those are actually the names registered in the Global Pets database (the trusted vet clinic/pet store since they were little kitties). But at home they own varieties of nicknames depending on their mommy’s mood. Buttercup could be “Baby”, “Beb”, “Bebot”, “Bobot” or “Abbot” because of his whining nature (obviously). Blacky is “Kitam” most of the time (the name given by their Atok apparently….), but he could also be “Kitamkitom” or “Petampetom” at times. Mimi, on the other hand could be “Amimi” or “Princess Amimi” or “Emot” or even “Cik-kok”, but when she started being a “kehpohchi” then her mommy (reactively) will started screaming “Siti NurAmimi!!!!” at her (depending on her daily antiques that is…).
Mimi strikes a “diva-ish” pose…
As they grow older, one thing that I noticed is their abilities to communicate with us. They can actually use distinctive meows or similar sounds to convey messages to us. Impressively, they can even contextualised their choices of meows depending on the situations or circumstances. Mimi can actually says “Nyaakkk” (which means “I waaannttt” in Malay) every time she wants people to hand-feed her some kibbles (yup…she’s been hand-fed since little). Baby calls me “Maaa” every time he enters my bedroom. And Kitam always greets us with his special “Ae-Yeoy” whenever we got home from work.
Baby trying to be a spiderman…
At this age, they also know their names very well. This is confirmed by the way they responded to us, for e.g. to my Dad every evening when he yelled out “Kitaammm….baliiikkkk” (i.e. “Kitaammm…get inside now”) and Kitam will galloping home right away.
Mimi every time her mommy is busy marking exam papers…
How cats responded to their names have been studied by a group of Japanese researchers. The article entitled Domestic cats (Felis catus) discriminate their names from other words by Atsuko Saito, Yuki Ito and Toshikazu Hasegawa has now published in Nature ( DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40616-4 ) and has been featured in APA’s Monitor on Psychology (July/August 2019 edition).
As highlighted on APA’s website, among the findings (and I quote): “The researchers found that the cats reacted more strongly to their names than to the other words, whether the speaker was their owner or a stranger”. We can actually read the synopsis of article via this link: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/07-08/inbrief
So the next time my sister and I want to gossip about Baby, Kitam or Mimi, we’ll make sure we do it without them around. Or else one of them will come and will cynically asks us “meow, meow, meow?…” (“you two talking about me?”….).
Kitam won’t let his mommy doing the work…Grrrrrr…..
