First day conference start with a simple opening ceremony with a speech from the Organizing Chair PM Dr Naziha Ali dan IEEE Co Sponsor PM Dr Arnold Pears.
Then we had an interesting speech by an Invited Speaker, Prof Dr Majid Konting from AKEPT, sharing his experience on “Higher Education Staff Development and Research in Teaching and Learning: Malaysia Perspective”.
The program then continue with parallel session on 3 theme which are Computing Education, Engineering Education and Higher Education.
One of the paper presented in Computing Education Room.
The first day was ended with a dinner and official ceremony officiated by Sarawak Minister in Welfare, Women and Family Development. The food was great and entertainment was very entertaining. We get back to our room with happy stomach 🙂
“Video Based Learning Embedded with Cognitive Load Theory: Visual, Auditory, and Kinaesthetic Learners’ Perspectives”
This paper is written by me and my students. Norah Md Noor, Munirah Aini, & Nurul ‘Izzati Hamizan. It was written based on our research that had been done in 2013 under UTM Instructional Development Grant.
Abstract for the paper is as follows:
Many research studies have shown that using video as an instructional material in class has a positive impact on the students. However, it is still an open question as to whether learning using video works with all type of students and as to who actually gains more than other types of students when learning using video. Chen, Czerwinski, and Macredie [1] found that individual visual ability affects information seeking on the Web and lessens the effects of cognitive load theory. So, what about the auditory and kinaesthetic learners? This study was conducted to investigate visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learners’ preferences towards learning using video embedded with cognitive load theory. 10 respondents within the age range of 20-24 years old have been voluntarily involved with this study. The instruments used in this research are a questionnaire set and three learning portfolios. The instruments examine the respondents’ learning styles, perception, comments, and suggestions about video-based learning selected by the researcher that were embedded with cognitive load theory. The data were analysed qualitatively using content analysis strategy. Even though the early expectation was that visual learners would be concerned about visuals more than other learner types, this research shows that all of them prefer similar elements. These include clear instruction, high visual and audio quality, and an easy-to follow strategic flow of the video. However, every learner group has its own additional characteristics that might be able to inspire its learning optimization.
Keyword: Cognitive load theory, video based learning, learning using video, auditory learners, visual learners, and kinaesthetic learners
This paper can be found in IEEE Explore,
PROCEEDING ISBN : 978-1-4799-3592-5/14
DOI : 10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.19
Alhamdulillah, 2 of my paper had been accepted to be presented during this conference.
The title of my first paper ( some finding based on my PhD research) is
“Application of the Pedagogical and Andragogical Model in Web-Based Learning Instruction among Non-Major Computer Science Students Learning Programming”
Abstract for my paper is as follows:
This study identified the pedagogical and andragogical learning orientations preferred by non-major Computer Science students in one of the higher education institutions in Malaysia. The pedagogical and andragogical learning orientation model differs in six assumptions about learners, which are: the learner’s need to know, selfconcept, existing experience, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and motivation [1]. Questionnaires were developed and distributed among 262 undergraduate students in non-major Computer Science Faculty who took the Introduction to Programming Language course. Descriptive analyses have also been conducted (alpha – 0.958), and the results showed that a majority of the sample in this study (246 respondents or 93.9%) stay under Stage 2 in the four stages of learning development. This means that the respondents had a high preference for pedagogical as well as andragogical learning orientations. Data collected shows that non-major Computer Science students in the age range of 18 to 24 are able to work independently since their self-concept had progressed to the self-directed learning phase. However, they still need guidance from their lecturers. These findings were used to develop a prototype of an individualized online learning environment based on the pedagogy and andragogy as its foundational model. Learners in Stage 2 need goal-setting, learning strategies, and evaluation to be set by the teacher. The online learning environment allowed the student to explore her learning modules from easy to hard levels. However, students were allowed to continue to the next module even though their performance was not yet at the passing level. This is based on andragogical theory; that they are dependent learners with a moderate level of self-directedness. Additional learning materials were also provided that could be freely explored by learners at their own pace. The prototype was tested among one group of 32 students in the Faculty of Education in the course Introduction to Programming using Pre-Experimental Research Design. The statistical analysis conducted indicated that the application of the pedagogical and andragogical Model in web based instruction had a positive effect on learners’ outcomes.
Keyword: pedagogy, andragogy, learning programming for non-majors
This paper can be found in IEEE Explore,
PROCEEDING ISBN : 978-1-4799-3592-5/14
DOI : 10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.27
On 11-13 April 2014, University Teknologi Malaysia and IEEE Computer Society had organize the International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE) in conjunction with Regional Conference in Engineering Education & Research in Higher Education (RCEE & RHEd) 2014 at Riverside Majestic Hotel, Kuching, Sarawak.
The conference intention is to create a platform towards sharing current practices and rigorous research being conducted in computing and engineering education as well as Higher education. All paper presented in this conference will be indexed in IEE Explore which is included in SCOPUS.
We hope that the conference was a huge success, provide high quality research presentations in three parallel tracks, inspiring keynotes, and strengthen the network. We also wish that all the participants had a fantastic experience in Borneo.
Today, around 22 full research master and phd student present their research design in 3 parallel session and getting an informative input from 3 panel. The Question and Answer session allow students to critically think back what should be change or reconsider to ensure that their research is correct.
Some of the presenter…
Anne Kathrin Peters from Uppsala University, Sweden
Radhiah A Rahim from UTM.
Nur ‘Izzati Hamizan, Master in Educational Technology, UTM
Lasse Hakulinen from Aalto University, Finland
Janet Tong from New Zealand
and many more….
Next agenda, the conference in Kuching Sarawak… Feeling exited 🙂
In order to help us doing the reviewing process, the paper can be send to subreviewer among our colleague that we know their skills and research interest. Please follow the steps below.
1. Log into www.easychair.org 2. Click on LATICE 2014 tab and select Change Role. Click on PC Members of Full Papers.
3. Then, select Reviews Tab and Click on My Papers. All papers that have been assign to you as PC will be listed.
4. Click on the Contact subreviewer icon on the paper that you want to give to your colleague. Then, fill in their information.
5. Please insert the following information in the Email Text section. You can change some of the text such as name of the sender.
The instructions on how to access the submission, accept or decline this review request, and submit your review can be found at the bottom of this letter.
There are three categories, research, practice, and work in progress, and the review criteria are slightly different. When reviewing a work in progress paper you should expect a shorter manuscript, under 8 pages, and the requirement for experimental data and significant contribution to the field is of lesser significance. Please indicate in the comments to the Chairs field if you think a paper that cannot be accepted as a full paper might be acceptable as a WiP paper, since that will help us make the final acceptance decisions.
Practice papers are more focused on practitioner stories and examples of successful practice in higher education. Such papers will be more descriptive in nature, and will also not offer the same level of experimental design as the pure research paper.
Please consider all papers for publication for both research and practice categories as well as Work in Progress as you review and make an appropriate recommendation.
I need to receive the review by 10th December 2013
If you cannot review this paper, could you please suggest names and email addresses of 2-3 possible reviewers?
Best regards, Norah Md Noor, Fakulti Pendidikan, UTM ___________________________________________________
Hope this tutorial can help you with the reviewing process. Best regards.
