skip to main content
10.1145/3535756.3535775acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicettConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Enhancing Teaching on Engineering and Science Areas, by Integrating Practice and Theory

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The professional degree programs on the areas of engineering and science are charged with multiple responsibilities in the classroom and in practice settings, namely memory, understanding, application, analysis, evaluation, and creation. The creation is the highest level of education goals. The innovative educational practices have become obligatory because it forms the foundation that prospers the growth of students belonging to the science domain.

The paper discusses that how to improve the practice section in the whole academic curriculum, through observing our students engaging in learning experiences in the classroom; and we share with our students the knowledge we've gained from our experiences. Moreover, we want our students to also benefit from the practice active learning processes, when we can accomplish all these goals over an entire curriculum,

References

  1. Amirault, R. J. (2015). Technology transience and the challenges it poses to higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Amutha, S. (2016). Impact of e-content integration in science on the learning of students at tertiary level. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(8), 643.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Cheong, N. (2019). Application and Research of Modelling Intelligent Learning Systems based on Recommendation System, Proceedings of The 11th Higher Education International Conference on Innovation and Developments in Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance. MacauGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheong, N. (2018). “In the information Age, Teaching in engineering and science areas, From “Learning and Practicing, to “Practicing and Learning, Proceedings of The 10th Higher Education International Conference on Innovation and Developments in Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance. Macau.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. George A. Sielis, Christos Mettouris, Aimilia Tzanavari, George A. (2012). Papadopoulos, Educational Recommender Systems and Technologies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Pearl, P., L, C., Rong, H. (2012). Evaluating recommender systems from the user's perspective: survey of the state of the art, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 22, pp. 317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Michael, J., Dietmar, J. (2017). Interacting with Recommenders-Overview and Research Directions, ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, vol. 7, pp. 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Mei, H.H. (2006). A personalized English learning recommender system for ESL students. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1):683-688.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Luiz, F. C., Tomaz, J.A., Rodrigues, N. Jano, M. S., Geraldo, B. X. (2011). Bringing knowledge into recommender systems", Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) 2011 15th International Conference, pp. 246-252.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooperrider, K., Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2016). Spatial analogies pervade complex relational reasoning: Evidence from spontaneous gestures. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. DeSutter, D., & Stieff, M. (2017). Teaching students to think spatially through embodied actions: Design principles for learning environments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Malek, N., Hall, J. C., & Hodges, C. (2014). A review and analysis of the effectiveness of alternative teaching methods on student learning in economics. Perspectives on Economic Education Research, 9(1), 75-85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaeger, A. J., Wiley, J., Moher, T. (2016). Leveling the playing field: Grounding learning with embedded simulations in geoscience. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications1(1), 23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Aher, S.B., Lobo, L. (2013). Combination of machine learning algorithms for recommendation of courses in E-Learning System based on historical data. Knowledge-Based Systems, 51:1-14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ghauth, K.I., Abdullah, N.A. (2010). Learning materials recommendation using good learners’ ratings and content-based filtering”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6):711-727.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Liang G., Kong, W.N., Luo, J.Z. (2006). Courseware recommendation in e-learning system, Berlin: Springer,.10-24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Milićević, A.K., Vesin, B., Ivanović, M., Budimac, Z.E. (2011). Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers & Education, 56(3):885-899.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kurilovas, E., Zilinskiene, I., Dagiene, V. (2015). Recommending suitable learning paths according to learners’ preferences: Experimental research results. Computers in Human Behavior, 51:945-951.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Intayoad W., Becker, T., Temdee, P. (2017). Social Context-Aware Recommendation for Personalized Online Learning”, Wireless Personal Communications, 97(1):163-179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Zhou, Y. W., Huang, C. Q. (2018). Personalized learning full-path recommendation model based on LSTM neural networks. Information Sciences, 444:135-152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Kikot, T., Costa, G., Magalhães, R. (2013). Simulation games as tools for integrative dynamic learning:Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. The case of the management course at the University of Algarve. Procedia Technology, 9, 11-21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Liao, Y. C., Liao, C. W., Chen, C. H., & Liao, Y. H. (2016). A study on learning effects of integrating information technology into electronics curriculum teaching. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,6(11), 831.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Losco, C. D., Grant, W. D., Armson, A., Meyer, A. J., & Walker, B. F. (2017). Effective methods of teaching and learning in anatomy as a basic science: A BEME systematic review: BEME guide, no. 44. Medical teacher, 39(3),234-243.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Robin, B. R. (2015). The effective uses of digital story telling as a teaching and learning tool. Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts, 2, 429-440.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (Vol. 2). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Malik, S., & Agarwal, A. (2012). Use of multimedia as a new educational technology tool-A study. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(5), 468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Neo, M., & Neo, T. K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist learning-Students’ perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Amirault J. Ray. (2015). Technology transience and the challenges it poses to higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ngai Cheong. (2019). Application and Research of Modelling Intelligent Learning Systems based on Recommendation System, Proceedings of The 11th Higher Education International Conference on Innovation and Developments in TL Quality Assurance, MacauGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ngai Cheong. (2018). Teaching in engineering and science areas, From “Learning and Practicing, to “Practicing and Learning”, Proceedings of The 10th Higher Education International Conference on Innovation and Developments in TL Quality Assurance, MacauGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. George A. Sielis, Christos Mettouris, Aimilia Tzanavari, George A. (2012). Papadopoulos, Educational Recommender Systems and Technologies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Pearl Pu, Li Chen & Rong Hu. (2012). Evaluating recommender systems from the user's perspective: survey of the state of the art, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 22, pp. 317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Michael Jugovac and Dietmar Jannach. (2017). Interacting with Recommenders-Overview and Research Directions, ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, vol. 7, pp. 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Hua Hsu Mei, (2006). A personalized English learning recommender system for ESL students. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1):683-688.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Kensy Cooperrider, Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow. (2016). Spatial analogies pervade complex relational reasoning: Evidence from spontaneous gestures. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Ninos P. Maleka, Joshua C. Hallb,Collin Hodgesc. (2014). A review and analysis of the effectiveness of alternative teaching methods on student learning in economics. Perspectives on Economic Education Research, 9(1), 75-85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Allison J. Jaeger, Jennifer Wiley & Thomas Moher. (2016). Leveling the playing field: Grounding learning with embedded simulations in geoscience. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications1(1), 23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Aher, S.B., Lobo, L.(2013). Combination of machine learning algorithms for recommendation of courses in E-Learning System based on historical data. Knowledge-Based Systems, 51:1-14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Ghauth, K.I., Abdullah, N.A. (2010). Learning materials recommendation using good learners’ ratings and content-based filtering”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6):711-727.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Liang G., Kong, W.N., Luo, J.Z. (2006). Courseware recommendation in e-learning system, Berlin: Springer,.10-24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Milićević, A.K., Vesin, B., Ivanović, M., Budimac, Z.E. (2011). Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers & Education, 56(3):885-899.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Kurilovas, E., Zilinskiene, I., Dagiene, V. (2015). Recommending suitable learning paths according to learners’ preferences: Experimental research results. Computers in Human Behavior, 51:945-951.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Intayoad W., Becker, T., Temdee, P. (2017). Social Context-Aware Recommendation for Personalized Online Learning”, Wireless Personal Communications, 97(1):163-179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Liao, Y. C., Liao, C. W., Chen, C. H., & Liao, Y. H. (2016). A study on learning effects of integrating information technology into electronics curriculum teaching. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,6(11), 831.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Losco, C. D., Grant, W. D., Armson, A., Meyer, A. J., & Walker, B. F. (2017). Effective methods of teaching and learning in anatomy as a basic science: A BEME systematic review: BEME guide, no. 44. Medical teacher, 39(3),234-243.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (Vol. 2). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Neo, M., & Neo, T. K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist learning-Students’ perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Enhancing Teaching on Engineering and Science Areas, by Integrating Practice and Theory

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ICETT '22: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies
        April 2022
        149 pages
        ISBN:9781450396974
        DOI:10.1145/3535756

        Copyright © 2022 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 25 July 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format