HECC 2019Advancing a culture of teaching:
Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
HECC 2019Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Contents���������������
���������������
����� ������������
����������� ������������
������������ ������ �������������
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Welcome MessageBY THE CO-CHAIRS
Welcome to the Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019. As the first part of a new two-day NUS Festival of Learning that joins together different ways of focusing on university teaching, HECC as before aspires to strengthen ties among students, faculty, and staff members within the NUS community. Through this Festival, we seek to explore the integrative potential of learning, research, and teaching.
This year, we are privileged to have our Educator-in-Residence for 2019, Dr Mary Deane Sorcinelli, as our keynote speaker. Dr Sorcinelli, who brings a wealth of experience and insights through her varied academic and leadership roles in higher education, will speak on the topic of how to advance a culture of inclusive teaching excellence on campus.
We are further delighted to present an array of high-quality abstracts for paper, poster, and PechaKucha. Faculty and students will share ideas and good practices that foster diversity and inclusivity in different contexts to optimise student and faculty learning. These presentations, we hope, will stimulate many more conversations on how collectively we as a community can advance a culture of teaching in diverse contexts.
Friends of CDTL who have been involved in our events and activities over the past years might have noticed that this year, we are bringing together three closely related events as one NUS Festival of Learning, which is intended together to advance a culture of teaching. Day 1 of the Festival begins with HECC 2019: a conference for sharing practices in a contextualised and grounded way. This is followed by Learning on NUS Campus, with excellent teachers presenting what—and demonstrating how—they teach. The Festival culminates in a celebration of teaching excellence in the form of the annual Teaching Awards ceremony.
We are grateful for strong support from Senior Deputy President and Provost, Professor Ho Teck Hua, who will speak on lifelong learning and adult education at NUS.
As importantly, we appreciate your presence at and engagement in the NUS Festival of Learning. We would like to thank you for your support and look forward to many productive conversations.
Johan GEERTSEMADirector, CDTL
LEE Kooi ChengDeputy Director, CDTL
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
ProgrammeTime Auditorium8.15am-8.45am Registration @ Lecture Theatre 3 foyer8.45am-9.00am Opening address by Guest of Honour
Professor Bernard TAN9.00am-10.00am Keynote Lecture
Chair: Assoc Prof Adrian LEEAdvancing a Culture of Inclusive Teaching Excellence on CampusDr Mary Deane SORCINELLI
10.00am-10.30am Coffee break @ CDTL10.30am-10.50am Paper Presentations10.55am-12.05pm Paper Presentations/PechaKucha Presentations12.10pm-1.10pm Lunch1.15pm-1.40pm Gallery Walk (Poster Presentations)1.45pm-3.25pm Paper Presentations3.25-4.30pm Closing Reception
From Presentation to Publication• Meet the AJSoTL Editors
18 NOVEMBER 2019 (MONDAY)
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Paper Presentations
Time Dewey Piaget Vygotsky Meadows Cluster
10.30am-10.50am
Reflective Learning: How getting students to spot mistakes enhances learning
CHIAN Siau Chen, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, FoE
Portfolio writing at higher education to support lifelong learning
PARK Mihi, Centre for Language Studies, FASS
Learning partnerships to co-construct knowledge and foster diversity in the classroom
Sadaf ANSARI, RVRC
Paper Presentations / PechaKucha Presentations
10.55am-11.15am
Research-based versus work-integrated learning programmes: Is one better than the other in training employability skills and attributes?
LAM Siew Hong & Cynthia HE, Department of Biological Sciences, FoS
Empowering engineering students: Why and how? A case study in environmental engineering
Olivier LEFEBVRE, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, FoE
Digitization of teaching materials to complement online learning
LEE Lai Yeng Cindy, De-partment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, FoE
My digital journey with FA1102—Leveraging Community of Inquiry for greater inclusivity
LUU Tran Huynh Loan Jodie, CELC
11.20am-11.40am
Insights into an interdisciplinary project on critical reflection in Nursing
Dr Namala Lakshmi TILAKARATNA, Dr Mark BROOKE & Dr Laetitia MONBEC, CELC
Considerations for inclusive education in online curriculum design
LAM Wanli Aileen, CELC
Undergraduate teaching assistants as co-curators for the “Learning to Learn Better” module: What they did and what they learned
Hui Ru TAN1,2,3*, Aaron R. JEYARAJ1,4, Balakuru S/O Madendran1,5, Jing Yi POH1,6, Magdeline Tao Tao NG1,7, Robert K. KAMEI1,8, Joshua J. GOOLEY1,9,10 and Fun Man FUNG1,11* #1
Paper Presentations/PechaKucha Presentations/Gallery Walk
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Paper Presentations/PechaKucha Presentations/Gallery Walk
Paper Presentations / PechaKucha Presentations
Time Dewey Piaget Vygotsky Meadows Cluster
11.45am-12.05pm
Authentic learning in a postgraduate applied physics course
CHAN Taw Kuei, Department of Physics, FoS
Evaluation of peer assessment in the technology-enhanced teaching of patient presentation skills
HAN Zhe, Department of Pharmacy, FoS
Students/Teachers co-creating low-cost virtual excursions and experiential learning using 3600 videos and annotation tools
Christoph Dominik ZIMMERMANN1, Alvita ARDISARA2,3, Foon Yin FUNG4, Shaphyna Nacqiar KADER2, Gopalakrishnakone P5, London Lucien OOI4,6,
Fun Man FUNG*2,7, Afiq Bin Dolkifli8, Arvindaraj Pillay S/O Thangaraj8, GOH Jin Yang8, Jonathan WU4, Vanessa LIM Zi Kun4, Xavier COUMOUL9, Etienne BLANC9 #2
Inclusive learning in classroom curricula and activities through authentic learning pedagogy
KUAN Yee Han, Tembusu College
12.10pm-1.10pm
Lunch
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Paper Presentations/PechaKucha Presentations/Gallery Walk
Gallery Walk (Poster Presentations)
Time Dewey Piaget Vygotsky Meadows Cluster
1.15pm-1.40pm
Effects of planetarium-based instruction on undergraduates learning astronomy
Ummu Sumaiyah Binte ELIASE & NG Shao Chin, Cindy, Department of Physics, FoS
Exploring students’ perception of feedback in computing internships
Bimlesh WADHWA, SoC, Mark GAN, CDTL, LI Shiyu, BIZ & Sarah CHEAH, BIZ
Creating an inclusive outdoor learning framework in a residential college
LIM Cheng Puay & Norman NEW Chin Guan, RVRC
Making thinking visible
Amy CHOONG Mei Fun, Department of Biological Sciences, FoS
Paper Presentations
1.45pm-2.05pm
Fostering interdisciplinarity through blended learning
Rafi RASHID, Graduate School for Integrative Sciences & Engineering, & Mingxun LIM, Dept of Political Science, FASS
Why do students perform the way they do? Uncovering the truth with eye-tracking technology
Joseph XU Weijian, KOH Mun Yee Sarah & FOONG Weng Chiong Kelvin, Dentistry
Design charrette pedagogy in flipped classroom to enable creative exploration outside design studio: A case of Environmental Systems module in architecture education NOOPUR Joshi & LAU Siu-Kit, Department of Architecture, SDE
2.10pm-2.30pm
Using a social annotation tool in the Ideas and Exposition Module (IEM) classroom
Marissa Kwan Lin E, CELC
Assessing learning outcomes of embedding leadership communication skills in an information systems leadership course
OH Lih Bin, Department of Information Systems and Analytics, SoC & Chitra SABAPATHY, CELC
Reflections on Practice: Technology-enhanced strategies to promote long-term student learning
Mrinal MUSIB, Department of Biomedical Engineering, FoE
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Paper Presentations/PechaKucha Presentations/Gallery Walk
Paper Presentations
Time Dewey Piaget Vygotsky Meadows Cluster
2.35pm-2.55pm
Smart devices, smart learning: Winning students’ attention in large classes
CHIAN Siau Chen, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, FoE
Project-centric approach and student’s metacognition in creating an authentic learning environment to enhance student’s engagement in teaching bioinstrumentation—A case study
James Chen Yong KAH, Department of Biomedical Engineering, FoE
I have a voice: Helping students’ critical thinking be heard in an academic writing course
Daron Benjamin LOO & Sylvia SIM, CELC
3.00pm-3.25pm
Clickers to scaffold higher cognitive thinking in traditional lecture class: An evidence-based study of architecture students
LAU Siu-Kit & Noopur JOSHIDepartment of Architecture, SDE
Not in class: The seats left empty by high-ability students from low-income backgrounds
Eqtaffaq Saddam Hussain Bin GULAM HUSSAIN, Yale-NUS College
3.25pm-4.30pm
Closing Reception
From Presentation to Publication• Meet the AJSoTL Editors
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Keynote LectureAdvancing a Culture of Inclusive Teaching Excellence on CampusDr Mary Deane SORCINELLI University of Massachusetts AmherstUSA
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Advancing a Culture of Inclusive Teaching Excellence on Campus
With growing pressures for accountability, reduced funding, competition from alternative providers, and serious questions about how to meet the challenges of a changing workforce, these are difficult times for higher education. But there is good news as well, as the focus on teaching and learning assumes a much more prominent place on the academic landscape.
Many colleges and universities today have established centers for teaching excellence that support the work of faculty looking to improve their students’ learning. A growing number of campuses are actively gathering evidence of student learning to guide innovation and improvement. Many campuses have also worked to reshape rewards and incentives in ways that encourage faculty to spend time and intellectual effort improving the learning experience of their increasingly diverse students. And all of this work has taken on greater urgency as higher education confronts the social imperative to support the success of all students—especially those that have not traditionally been well served by colleges and universities.
New classroom practices, though critical, are not enough to meet the challenges facing higher education. This keynote highlights the importance of a larger context—a campus culture—in which teaching and learning are a focus of sustained attention, inquiry, and improvement by all members of the campus community. But what are the distinguishing features of such a culture and how are such cultures built, nurtured, and sustained? In this session, we will 1) identify the critical, defining indicators of a culture of teaching and learning; 2) explore levers for cultivating such a culture in ways that respect disciplinary differences; and 3) strategize about opportunities for strengthening a culture that supports powerful and equitable learning for all members of the campus community: students, faculty, and staff.
Synopsis
Mary Deane SORCINELLIUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstUSA
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Advancing a Culture of Inclusive Teaching Excellence on Campus
Dr Mary Deane SORCINELLI is Co-PI, Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative, Association of American Universities (AAU) and Senior Fellow, Institute for Teaching Excellence & Faculty Development, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Previous roles include Associate Provost, Professor, and Founding Director, Center for Teaching & Faculty Development, UMass Amherst and Director, Office of Faculty Development, Indiana University Bloomington.
Mary Deane’s research is in the areas of faculty professional development, mentoring, scholarly writing, improvement of teaching and learning, and the role of teaching centers in fostering 21st century faculty learning. She has published over 100 articles, book chapters and books, most recently co-authoring A Center for Teaching and Learning Matrix (2018). She has co-directed and advised grant-funded projects aimed at promoting educational innovation for the National Science Foundation (NSF), Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Microsoft, and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Mary Deane served as President of the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education, the oldest and largest faculty professional development association in the world. She was honoured with the Spirit of POD Award for outstanding lifetime achievement and leadership in faculty development. She served as Distinguished Scholar in Residence, Mount Holyoke College and Senior Scholar, American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). She has worked in some 15 countries and was awarded a Fulbright Specialist to Education City, Qatar, a Distinguished Visiting Professor, American University in Cairo, Egypt, and a Whiting Foundation Fellow, National University of Ireland Galway.
Mary Deane holds an M.A. in English Literature from Mount Holyoke College and an ED.D. in Educational Policy from UMass Amherst.
About the Speaker
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
PaperPresentations
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Dewey Room, CDTL
10:30am-10:50am
Reflective learning: How getting students to spot mistakes enhances learning
CHIAN Siau Chen
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
The objective of education is learning. It involves imparting valuable knowledge to students and cultivating
their interest in the subject matter. Students should be confident and eager to apply the knowledge gained
in their careers. This way, they would be intrinsically motivated to innovate and add value to the work
assigned to them. These are analogous to the essence of the taxonomies of educational objectives outlined
by Anderson and Krathwohl, which involve knowledge-based, skills-based and affective goals (Anderson et
al., 2001). Course materials and assessment should be crafted to achieve these goals. Furthermore, effective
imparting of knowledge should also encompass ways to enhance subject retention, comprehension of concepts,
and finally, application to various relevant situations.
Past research studies focused mainly on the development of additional teaching materials, particularly
technology-aided tools (Rehak & Schields, 1984; Ebner & Holzinger, 2002). Unfortunately, the development
of more teaching materials does not necessarily translate to effective cognitive learning. In fact, such
materials may discourage students who are already struggling to keep up with their existing academic
workload, while encouraging others to memorise more worked examples. In view of these concerns, an
initiative to revamp the traditional approach in graded assignments was implemented and the findings are
presented in this study.
In graded assignments which used conventional formats, students were commonly graded based on the level
of completeness of their workings rather than their understanding of concepts. The lecturer’s gauge of the
students’ level of understanding would also be limited to the students’ workings which may not accurately
reflect their thought process while attempting the assignments. Post-marking feedback thus may not be truly
valid. An alternative format was proposed, which required students to identify mistakes in a set of given
workings and to explain why these workings were incorrect. In the process of analysing the mistakes, students
gained a deeper understanding of the subject and were enriched by the learning experience. A total of
243 engineering undergraduates participated in the study. Following the completion of the assignment, an
anonymous questionnaire was disseminated to collect essential information on students’ interests, learning,
preferences and self-efficacy. The responses were separated according to the year of study: 2nd year
(Group X) and 3rd year (Group Y) undergraduates. The module taken by Group X was an introductory soil
mechanics engineering subject, while Group Y was based on an advanced engineering module which was
also related to soil mechanics. The format of the assignments for both modules over the years were identical,
although the questions in the assignment for Group X are more conceptual while those for Group Y are more
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
applied in nature. This offered greater diversity in terms of the students’ ability to analyse the assignment
questions, although similar observations between the two groups may be affected by inherently different
factors.
Based on the responses to the questionnaire, majority of students gave positive feedback about the
alternative format. They enjoyed the “reverse-thinking” process and many found the workings useful in
providing a frame of reference to solving the problem. It also helped them understand the concepts better
rather than merely assessing their ability to solve standard problems. However, students were also relatively
comfortable with the conventional format due to its familiarity. In terms of the learning experience, a large
proportion of students felt that the alternative format enhanced their learning and thinking abilities (Figure
1). With respect to self-efficacy, most students felt positive in doing better (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Comparison of students’ responses towards the alternative and conventional style assignments
(Group X). (a) Comparison of learning benefits, (b) Persistence analysis.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Figure 2. Comparison of students’ self-efficacy levels and their expected grades (Groups X and Y).
Based on the grades obtained, students fared better in the assignments which adopted the conventional
format (Figure 3). When comparing students’ expected and actual assignment grades, it was found that the
students were generally over-optimistic about their grades (Figure 4). Further analysis also showed that
students who were academically inclined obtained higher grades in subsequent semesters over the course of
their undergraduate studies, while academically weaker students may not benefit from the new format as
significantly (Figure 5).
Figure 3. Comparison of grades obtained by students in the alternative and conventional style assignments
(Group X).
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Figure 4. Comparison of expected and actual assignment grades obtained by students. (a) Group X,
(b) Group Y.
Figure 5. Differences between students’ Module Point (MP) and Cumulative Average Point (CAP).
(a) Group X, (b) Group Y.
In summary, the alternative format has shown to be successful in achieving its objectives in stimulating students’
interests, as well as levels of learning and self-efficacy, especially in engineering modules where assignments
are generally mathematical in nature and it is difficult to assess students’ actual levels of understanding.
Wider application of such pedagogy in higher education learning would instil in students a deeper
understanding of the subject and higher levels of confidence in tackling complex engineering challenges in
their future careers. Further studies over a longer term and across different proficiencies of student groups
on similar initiatives would enable educators to do a more holistic evaluation of the reflective learning method,
particularly the extent in which this approach would lead to improvements in the levels of learning and self-
efficacy in engineering subjects.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Keywords
Assignment; mistakes; preference; learning experience; self-efficacy
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Alrasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., &
Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2002). eLearning in civil engineering: The experience applied to a lecture course
in structural concrete. Journal on Applied Information Technology, 1(1), 1-9. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4784/45a5085f0a1f175444aaa2b9dfcf38dee77b.pdf.
Rehak, D. R., & Schields, T. V. (1984). Design of a pedagogical aid for civil engineering education. Technical
Report DRC-12-21-84, Carnegie Institute of Technology.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Piaget Room, CDTL
10:30am-10:50am
Portfolio writing at higher education to support lifelong learning
PARK, Mihi
Centre for Language Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Lifelong learning is a topic which is actively discussed in higher education. In a dynamic society where change
is constant and a piece of useful knowledge may become useless tomorrow, a person’s learnability, that is,
their ability to acquire necessary knowledge at any point of life, becomes more important than the quantity
of knowledge they acquire now (Daily FT, 2017). As a result, educators are becoming more interested in
nurturing critical thinking and learnability, and encouraging learners to view learning as a lifelong activity.
According to a well-known discussion on reflection by Dewey (1933), the concept includes critical thinking,
and the reflective activity should be constructive. Meanwhile, metacognition is another important factor of
learning which is closely related to reflection, since it was defined as reflective consciousness or inner speech
by Vygotsky (1986). Additionally, active monitoring is a key aspect of metacognition (Flavell, 1976), and
critical thinking and monitoring are terms repeatedly used to describe the reflective and metacognitive
aspects of learning. Merriam and Bierema (2014), in fact, explicitly explain that critical thinking includes
reflection and the monitoring process. To sum up, lifelong learning is attributed to enhanced reflective and
metacognitive skills, because being equipped with critical thinking abilities would allow learners to assess
assumptions, beliefs, and actions, which are necessary life skills (Merriam & Bierema, 2014).
A learning portfolio refers to a collection of documents and artefacts that serve as evidence to support
claims a person makes about what they know, what they have achieved, and what they can do (Stefani et
al., 2007). Among the known benefits of a learning portfolio, reflection and metacognition are the skills
learners can attain while producing a portfolio (Council of Europe, 2019), which would enable them to
potentially develop their capacity for lifelong learning.
Therefore, the module LAK4201 “Korean 5” at NUS adopts the learning portfolio approach to enhance
learners’ autonomy and lifelong learning. Students were asked to submit a ‘Language Passport’ (Council of
Europe, 2019) before the start of the semester. The Passport would help students get started on their
portfolios by reflecting on their past experiences of learning languages, and for the lecturer to gain a better
understanding of students’ respective backgrounds. Importantly, the aim of portfolio writing is thoroughly
explained to the students, so that they would maximise the learning opportunities presented by this activity.
During the semester, students were required to submit two types of works: a weekly written reflection with
guiding questions, and five task-based assignments. A thematic approach was employed to analyse the
weekly reflections, following procedures suggested by Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000). Metacognitive or
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
reflective comments on his/her own learning activities were identified based on the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (Oxford, 1990) which was used to evaluate how well learners used metacognitive
strategies to learn a language.
The comments collated indicated that students reflected on the learning activity and the process meticulously
(e.g. “The examples didn’t help me understand X because they were out of context”), were aware of cross-
linguistic differences (e.g. “I will try to learn the expressions because they don’t exist in English but are used
frequently in Korean”; “I realised [there are] various words to address family members in Korean, perhaps
because family is such an important unit in Korean culture”), were able to apply prior knowledge from past
language learning experiences (e.g. “I realised that the new sentence structure is similar with the one that
we learnt last semester”; “I wonder how they [two constructions] are different in usage”), and plan for the
next stage of the language learning process (e.g. “It was not as easy as it looks at the beginning of writing
Assignment 1. Although I had plenty of ideas and examples to write about, it was difficult to organise them
in an efficient and coherent way. I think I need to practise writing longer and complex sentences”).
The findings indicate that writing a portfolio of the language learning process enhanced students’ capacity
for meticulous reflection and their involvement in metacognitive activities, which would ultimately support
lifelong learning.
Keywords
Portfolio, lifelong learning, metacognition, reflective learning, language learning
References
Council of Europe (2019). What is the ELP? Retrieved from
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/introduction.
Daily FT (2017). Learnability more important than knowledge. Retrieved from
http://www.ft.lk/youthcareershigher-education/Learnability-more-important-than-knowledge/30-
639195 .
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process.
Lexington, MA: DC Heath and Company.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of
intelligence (pp. 213-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory, and research.
Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Lejeune, C., Beausaert, S., & Raemdonck, I. (2018). The impact on employees’ job performance of
exercising self-directed learning within personal development plan practice. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management 0(0), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1510848
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice (First ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley brand.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Stefani, L., Mason, R., & Pegler, C. (2007). The educational potential of e-portfolios: Supporting personal
development and reflective learning. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
10:30am-10.50am
Learning partnerships to co-construct knowledge and foster diversity in the classroom
Sadaf ANSARI
Ridge View Residential College
An increase in global interdependencies and migration, and more recently the advent of lifelong learning
has led to educators placing greater emphasis on the need for inclusion and diversity in higher education
(Lorraine & Blessinger, 2017). However, research has indicated that the transition to university education can
be challenging, especially for learners from less privileged, culturally different or marginalised backgrounds.
While the university can offer greater autonomy to learners from diverse backgrounds, such learners may
also encounter increased competition or hostility from peers (Kalsner & Pistole, 2003). This can result in
feelings of social anxiety and fear, which can have a negative impact on the learner. Ensuring that learners
have the necessary support, are able to build relationships, develop multicultural skills with members from
diverse backgrounds, and are equipped with the ability to participate in a pluralistic community can mitigate
some of the problems mentioned (Locks, 2008). Living-learning communities, by virtue of being smaller and
connected yet diverse, can address such needs (Inkelas, 2008). As such, the classroom setting in a living-
learning community provides teachers and learners an invaluable opportunity to nurture and sustain a culture
of inclusion and diversity.
This paper considers how inclusivity can be fostered when knowledge is co-constructed by learners in a living-
learning community. The paper takes a holistic approach to diversity; narrow definitions often concern only
specific groups of learners or attributes, or the mainstreaming of special education. This paper addresses
more common descriptions that focus on the diversity of learners in terms of ethnicity, gender, language, and
socioeconomic backgrounds. The teaching strategies advocated are grounded in existing literature, and use
classroom observation as a key point of reference. The paper argues that co-construction of knowledge can
foster the sharing of diverse perspectives by: 1) creating a partnership that lead learners to relate concepts
to existing knowledge and each other’s perspectives, 2) critically evaluating ideas, and 3) providing
feedback for the shared narrative of classroom learning. Collectively, these can create a culture that reflects
all learners that make up the learning partnership and ideas would be treated with equal respect.
Co-construction is a broad umbrella that encompasses different strategies. The paper focuses on the co-
construction strategy of establishing learning partnerships between the teacher and the learners; where the
learners become active participants in the learning process and construct knowledge in collaboration with
the teacher. This strategy requires a high level of learner engagement, while simultaneously enhancing it
further. Being situated in a living-learning community facilitates the adoption of the strategy for the classroom
due to prior familiarity between learners. The resulting improvement in learner engagement can, in turn,
feed forward to more inclusive community interactions.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
An action research model was adopted, primarily to enable dynamic improvements to teaching strategies
for four different modules and their content. The learners were in their first two years of undergraduate
study and from multidisciplinary backgrounds. Class sizes were relatively standard, ranging from 12 to 15
learners, with a total of 90 learners. Subject content for the four case examples under consideration range
from environmental sustainability and landscape changes to heritage conservation and marine pollution.
Lesson plans were designed to enable learners greater control over the framing of questions to be explored,
while ensuring high degree of collaborative interaction to foster inclusivity. Qualitative data was collected in
the form of observations about classroom interactions and discussions, learner notes and reflective essays.
These were analysed using text analytics tools such as word frequency and sentiment analysis to understand
perceived learner benefits about inclusiveness. The research team also examined teacher observations and
notes which recorded the benefits of the process of co-constructing knowledge in the classroom. Based on
the results, the paper holds that co-construction of knowledge enable learners to reap benefits such as
agency, enhanced engagement, motivation and learning, and enhanced meta-cognitive awareness, and this
in turn promotes inclusivity.
Keywords
Co-construction, diversity, learning partnership, living-learning, community
References
Addy, T., Husseini, A., & DeVault, A. (2019, June 5). What two students want you to know about inclusive
teaching: Faculty focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-
learning/inclusive-teaching-fosters-supportive-classroom/.
Bovill, C., Felten, P. & Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching (2):
Practical guidance for academic staff and academic developers. International Consortium on
Educational Development Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 16-18 June.
Kalsner, L., & Pistole, M. C. (2003). College adjustment in a multiethnic sample: Attachment, separation-
individuation, and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 92–109.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0006
Locks, A.M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N.A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and
diversity to students’ transition to college. Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 257-285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2008.0011
Lorraine, S., & Blessinger, P. (Eds.). (2017). Inclusive Leadership in Higher Education: International Perspectives
and Approaches. New York: Routledge.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Dewey Room, CDTL
10:55am-11:15am
Research-based versus work-integrated learning programmes: Is one better than the other in training employability skills and attributes?
LAM Siew Hong* and Cynthia HE
Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science
Graduates with employability skills and attributes are perceived to adapt, perform and progress better in
the modern workplace (Succi & Canovi, 2019). Employers expect the undergraduate programmes in
universities to produce graduates with such skills and attributes to meet the changing demands of the
workforce (Tomlinson, 2008). Both research-based learning (RL) and work-integrated learning (WIL)
programmes have long been used to equip undergraduates with skills and attributes that would enhance
their employability (Crebert, Bates, Bell, Patrick, & Cragnolini, 2004; Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, & DeAntoni,
2004). While both types of programmes have been successful (Jackson, 2015; Stanford, Rocheleau, Smith,
& Mohan, 2015), in terms of the perceived learning of employability skills and attributes, no comparison has
been made between science students who had undergone RL and those who went through WIL. Such an
investigation is important in terms of enhancing the training of science undergraduates, where RL has been
considered the traditional approach and WIL is gaining wider adoption. This study compares the perceived
importance and learning of employability skills and attributes in students who had undergone either the RL
or WIL programmes under the NUS Life Sciences curriculum. It also investigates the perceived difficulty of
these training programmes and their perceived usefulness in preparing undergraduates for future
employment and work-readiness.
An online survey was conducted for fourth year Life Sciences undergraduates at the end of their self-selected
RL or WIL programmes. The total respondents consisted of 171 and 147 students who completed their
respective RL and WIL programmes as part of their graduation requirements. The study investigated 18
items that can be broadly grouped under five categories. They are: (I) Disciplinary Knowledge and Skills, (II)
Ethics and Professional Awareness, (III) Thinking Skills, (IV) Information, Communication and Interpersonal Skills
and (V) Employability Attributes. The investigated items were adapted from studies by Rayner and
Papakonstantinou (2015), and by Sarkar, Overton, Thompson, and Rayner (2016), who compiled a list of
knowledge, skills and attributes based on a substantial literature review followed by surveys conducted on
science graduates and their employers. The items are broadly aligned with the seven key skills framework
proposed by Washer (2007) and seven key competencies reported by Mayer (1992). Using a five-point or
seven-point Likert scale, students were asked to rate the items in the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were
generated and student’s t-test was employed to infer statistical significance of mean ratings between students
from both the RL and WIL programmes.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
In addressing the perceived importance of the 18 items in the respective training programmes, it was found
that all the items had average ratings of above 5 (Quite Important) except for “Disciplinary Skills” which
was rated by WIL students. Based on the mean ratings, the top and bottom three items rated by RL and WIL
students were distinctly different. The findings suggest that differences in perceived importance by RL and
WIL students may motivate learning of knowledge, skills and attributes differently.
In addressing perceived learning, RL students retrospectively indicated lower average ratings compared to
WIL students in all 18 items, and the ratings of five items were highly significant at the start of their training
programme. With the exception of “Disciplinary Skills”, RL students indicated lower average ratings than
WIL students on 17 items, and the ratings for 12 items were highly significant at the end of their training
programme. However, the average gain in rating was significantly different for six items only. The findings
suggest that RL students tended to rate themselves lower than WIL students with respect to their employability
skills and attributes, although the learning gain was comparable for some of the items.
Interestingly, 63.9% of RL students rated their work as ‘Difficult/Very Difficult’ compared to only 19.3% of
WIL students. Moreover, only 66% of RL students rated their training program as ‘Useful/Very Useful’ in
preparing them for their future employment compared to 89.5% of WIL students. Nevertheless, 81.6% of
RL students were ‘Quite/Absolutely’ confident about joining the workforce compared to 97.1% of WIL
students. Taken together, the findings suggest that the RL programme was perceived less positively compared
to the WIL programme in terms of equipping students with employability skills and attributes. This may be
due to the differences in awareness of employability skills and attributes between RL and WIL students
during the survey. The limitation of the present study is that it was based on students’ perceptions only.
Extending it beyond student perception may require further assessment of employability skills and attributes.
Keywords
Research-based learning, work-integrated learning, employability skills and attributes, Science
undergraduates.
References
Crebert, G, Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C., & Cragnolini, V. (2004). Developing generic skills at university,
during work placement and in employment: graduates' perceptions. Higher Education Research &
Development, 23(2), 147-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000206636
Jackson, D. (2015) Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice.
Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842221
Mayer, E., Australian Educational Council, Mayer Committee (1992). Putting general education to work: The
key competencies report. Melbourne, NSW: Australian Education Council & Ministers for Vocational
Education, Employment, & Training.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Rayner, G., & Papakonstantinou, T. (2015). Employer perspectives of the current and future value of STEM
graduate skills and attributes: An Australian study. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate
Employability, 6(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2015vol6no1art576
Sarkar, M., Overton, T., Thompson, C. & Rayner, G. (2016). Graduate employability: Views of recent
science graduates and employers. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics
Education, 24(3), 31-48. Retrieved from
https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/11043.
Seymour, E., Hunter, A-B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research
experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study. Science
Education, 88, 493–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131
Stanford, J. S., Rocheleau, S. E., Smith, K. P. W. & Mohan J. (2015). Early undergraduate research
experiences lead to similar learning gains for STEM and Non-STEM undergraduates. Studies in
Higher Education, 42(1), 115-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1035248
Succi, M. & Canovi, M. (2019). Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: comparing students and
employers’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1585420
Tomlinson, M. (2008). ‘The degree is not enough’: Students’ perceptions of the role of higher education
credentials for graduate work and employability. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(1),
49–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425690701737457
Washer, P. (2007). Revisiting key skills: A practical framework for higher education. Quality in Higher
Education, 13(1), 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320701272755
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Piaget Room, CDTL
10:55am-11:15am
Empowering engineering students: Why and how? A case study in environmental engineering
Olivier LEFEBVRE
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
The need for engineers in today’s society is greater than ever, resulting in a large public investment made to
prepare precollege students for an engineering education. However, the attractiveness of engineering as a
discipline has decreased over time. Furthermore, the attrition rate is very high and this represents both a loss to
the engineering workforce and a loss of return to public investment (Godfrey, Aubrey, & King, 2010; Meyer &
Marx, 2014). Most engineering students leave engineering due to deficits in academic and career advising,
engineering structure and curriculum, insufficient high school preparation, disinterest or disappointment in the
field (Meyer & Marx, 2014). Another primary reason for the high attrition rate among engineering students is
the perception that the engineering learning environment is unwelcoming and fails to motivate them. The
importance of early commitment in the retention of engineering students has been discussed extensively by Li,
Swaminathan, and Tang (2009).
In engineering, as in many other disciplines, student empowerment is increasingly a focus of concern, driven by
the complexity of a rapidly evolving industry in the 21st century. The new engineer can be defined as an “out-
of-the-boxer” (Miller, 2016), characterised by an adaptive, creative, innovative and optimistic mindset. No
longer the “technical manager”, he has evolved to become the interface between the team that handles the
technical aspects, his management and the clients. In this context, the engineering curriculum needs to adapt in
order to train students to work under scenarios characterised by uncertainty, complexity and innovation, while
keeping them interested and promoting intrinsic motivation (Smith-Sebasto, 1995).
Studies have shown that students are more likely to be intrinsically motivated if they attribute their educational
results to factors within their control (Smith-Sebasto, 1995). Autonomy is best promoted through active learning
and interactivity. One way to develop extrinsic motivation is via peer education, under the close supervision and
intervention of the teacher. In a 2016 seminar at NUS, Eric Mazur, Chair of applied physics at Harvard,
showcased how he encourages students to continuously help each other (Yang, 2016). More recently,
Guntzburger, Pauchant, and Tanguy (2019) proposed an active learning method to empower engineering
students based on complex case studies and role play. Another important aspect of empowering students is
through complex multifaceted group projects (Papadopoulou, Lytras, & Marouli, 2016), including cross-
disciplinary activities as well as in non-technical areas, including critical thinking, communication and the
humanities (Ballatore, Montanaro, & Tabacco, 2019; Greculescu & Todorescu, 2017).
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
In this presentation, I will showcase my incorporation of authentic projects (Herrington, 2005) in a flipped
classroom mode for an environmental engineering module. The projects were developed in partnership with the
National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) to increase waste awareness across
various schools in Singapore. The objective of the study was to analyse the effectiveness of this authentic learning
approach on improving students’ levels of engagement and learning performance by using a mix of qualitative
and quantitative statistical methods. The conceptual framework is summarised in Figure 1, and the connection
between engagement and authentic learning was verified empirically by means of focus group interviews and
questionnaires, followed by statistical analysis.
Figure 1. Correlational analysis and regression analysis.
High Pearson correlation coefficients (in bold) and high linear regression coefficients (in parentheses) in Figure
1 demonstrate the positive correlation between authentic learning, engagement and learning performance. We
transcribed and analysed the focus group interviews into three main themes: workload and effectiveness of
teaching method, peer interactions and review, and real-life reflection. A student commented that “Though it
was extremely tedious, tiring and inconvenient, I particularly found the NEA project meaningful and certainly
appreciate the effort put in with NEA and the schools to prepare the class for this project.”
In conclusion, one wonders who should work harder: teachers or students (Groh & Ieee, 2016)? Empowering
students does not mean the teacher abdicating control of the classroom. However, it certainly implies a new role
for the teacher, which can be seen as being similar to that of a coach (Groh & Ieee, 2016). By giving students
ample time to explore and develop their ideas, support innovation, reward risks, promote research and peer
review (as well as self-review), we can empower students to ensure that they remain relevant throughout their
working lives.
Keywords
Active learning, authentic learning, engagement, motivation, project-based learning
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
References
Ballatore, M. G., Montanaro, L., & Tabacco, A. (2019). Empowering talented students: An Italian experience of
an enriched curriculum in Engineering. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 9(3), 56-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i3.10140
Godfrey, E., Aubrey, T., & King, R. (2010). Who leaves and who stays? Retention and attrition in engineering
education. Engineering Education, 5(2), 26-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.11120/ened.2010.05020026
Greculescu, A., & Todorescu, L. L. (2017). English teacher's classroom language—An empowering tool for
engineering students. In A. Sandu, T. Ciulei, & A. Frunza (Eds.), 2nd Central & Eastern European Lumen
International Conference - Multidimensional Education & Professional Development. Ethical Values (Vol. 27,
pp. 277-282). Nicosia: Future Acad.
Groh, J. L., & Ieee. (2016). Academic coaching tools for increased retention: empowering engineering students
in their education. 2016 Ieee Frontiers in Education Conference. New York: Ieee.
Guntzburger, Y., Pauchant, T. C., & Tanguy, P. A. (2019). Empowering engineering students in ethical risk
management: An experimental study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 911-937.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0044-2
Herrington, J. (2005). Authentic learning environments in higher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Li, Q., Swaminathan, H., & Tang, J. (2009). Development of a classification system for engineering student
characteristics affecting college enrollment and retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 361-
376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01033.x
Meyer, M., & Marx, S. (2014). Engineering Dropouts: A qualitative examination of why undergraduates leave
engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4), 525-548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20054
Miller, P. M. (2016, October 12). Les étudiants sont désormais formés au «savoir-être» [Students are now
trained in “soft skills”]. Le Monde. Retrieved from
https://www.lemonde.fr/campus/article/2016/10/12/l-enseignement-superieur-met-le-savoir-etre-
au-programme-des-etudiants_5012312_4401467.html.
Papadopoulou, P., Lytras, M., & Marouli, C. (2016). Capstone projects in stem education: novel teaching
approaches, mentoring and knowledge management for empowering students. In L. G. Chova, A. L.
Martinez, & I. C. Torres (Eds.), Edulearn16: 8th International Conference on Education and New Learning
Technologies (pp. 5675-5685). Valenica: Iated-Int Assoc Technology Education a& Development.
Smith-Sebasto, N. J. (1995). The effects of an environmental studies course on selected variables related to
environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 26(4), 30-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1995.9941449
Yang, D. (2016, September 9). Yale-NUS Centre for Teaching & Learning begins its series of learning
activities with a lecture by peer instruction expert Professor Eric Mazur. Latest @ Yale-NUS. Retrieved
from https://www.yale-nus.edu.sg/newsroom/9-september-2016-yale-nus-centre-teaching-learning-
begins-series-learning-activities-lecture-peer-instruction-expert-professor-eric-mazur/.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Dewey Room, CDTL
11:20am-11:40am
Insights into an interdisciplinary project on critical reflection in Nursing
Namala Lakshmi TILAKARATNA, Mark BROOKE*, and Laetitia MONBEC
Centre for English Language Communications
This paper provides a description of the first and second stages of a pedagogical research project consisting
of an interdisciplinary collaboration between nursing disciplinary experts from the Alice Lee Centre for
Nursing Studies (ALCNS) and academic literacy experts from the Centre for English Language Communication
(CELC) at NUS. The project entitled “Reflecting Across the Disciplines” explores the highly valued skill of
‘critical reflection’ in nursing undergraduate clinical modules drawing on rigorous theoretical frameworks that
make visible salient linguistics resources (Systemic Functional Linguistics/SFL) and knowledge practices
(Legitimation Code Theory/LCT). We ask the following research questions: what constitutes ‘deep reflection’
in clinical nursing practice? How can we make ‘deep reflection’ explicit and visible in creating effective
pedagogic interventions? Our ultimate aims are to develop an assessment rubric and an online pedagogical
intervention for students based on our analyses.
The first stage of the project involved the collection of student critical reflection assignments and their analysis
using genre pedagogy (Martin & Rose, 2008), appraisal (Martin & White, 2005), and semantic waves
(Szenes, Tilakaratna, & Maton, 2015; Tilakaratna, Brooke, & Monbec, forthcoming). These tools are used to
explore the kinds of language and knowledge practices that are privileged in critical reflection written
assessments. The texts were selected based on the marks allocated by the nursing faculty at ALCNS without
input from the literacy experts. The purpose of this analysis was to identify textual features of these
assignments which can be taught to a diverse cohort of nursing students in order to improve their writing. The
findings presented are in three main areas of analysis: Generic Structure (the expected stages of the critical
reflection process); Evaluation (the targets and types of evaluative meanings that demonstrate critical
reflection); and Semantic Gravity (the types of knowledge provided at the personal experiential level and
at the abstract, theoretical level).
The second stage of the project involved the rubric development for student critical reflection assignments
based on the analyses conducted during Stage 1. This then led to producing an online pedagogical
intervention based on our analyses. Gibbs’ (1998) reflective cycle was already implemented as scaffold in
the nursing faculty to guide the teaching and assessment of critical reflections before the start of the research.
However, nursing faculty in the form of their recent research (Wu, et al., 2016; Wu, et al., 2015) identified
that students tend to write reflections that are predominantly descriptive in nature and lack criticality, despite
the use of Gibbs (1998) as a model for the process. The authors worked collaboratively with the nursing
faculty to construct an assessment rubric that could effectively integrate both the content of Gibbs’ cycle
(description; feeling; evaluation; conclusions; and action) and their own findings based on the three main
areas of analysis, Genre Structure; Evaluation; and Semantic Gravity. The outcome of this second phase is
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
presented. The new structure proposed for the teaching and assessment of critical reflections covers 5 stages:
orientations (both general and specific); a critical incident/trigger event; an excavation process;
transformation; and finally a coda. The presentation will show how these stages can align with the five stages
outlined by Gibbs’ reflective cycle. It will also demonstrate in detail, through text analyses of valued student
critical reflections, how our evaluations from SFL and LCT can inform how students can successfully write
reflections at the discourse and lexico-grammatical levels. The frameworks can also pinpoint how students
can avoid writing descriptively based on general patterns observed in the collated student data. Finally, the
authors will provide an overview of the content of the online pedagogical intervention, and share preliminary
results from focus group and group discussions with nursing faculty and students about its effectiveness.
Keywords
Critical reflection; clinical nursing practice; assessment rubric development; Systemic Functional Linguistics;
Legitimation Code Theory.
References
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. London: Further Education
Unit.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Szenes, E., Tilakaratna, N., & Maton, K. (2015). The knowledge practices of critical thinking. In M. Davies, &
R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education (pp. 573-591). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tilakaratna, N., Brooke, M., & Monbec, L. (forthcoming in 2019). Reflecting writing across the disciplines:
Challenging Western critical thinking models in the Asian context. Asian Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning.
Wu, X. V., Wang, W., Pua, L. H., Heng, D. G., & Enskar, K. (2015). Undergraduate nursing students'
perspectives on clinical assessment at transition to practice. Contemporary Nurse, 51(2-3), 272-285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2016.1163232
Wu, X. V., Enskär, K., Heng, D. G. N., Pua, L. H., & Wang, W. (2016). The perspectives of preceptors
regarding clinical assessment for undergraduate nursing students. International Nursing Review, 63(3),
473-481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/inr.12272
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Dewey Room, CDTL
11:45am-12:05pm
Authentic learning in a postgraduate applied physics course
CHAN Taw Kuei
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science
The delivery of transferable skills to postgraduate students is becoming increasingly important, due to the
need for skilled and adaptable researchers in the modern, dynamic research landscape. This has led to some
countries such as Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (Gilbert, Ballati, Turner, & Whitehouse,
2004) to issue common sets of guidelines to their universities with regards to the transferable skills that all
research students in higher degree programmes should be trained in. In Physics Education Research (PER),
studies have been done on the various aspects of teaching and learning in physics, such as the conceptual
change in students (Dewey, Boyle, & Monarch, 1992), students’ belief about learning physics (Adams et al.,
2006), problem solving skills (Leak, Rothwell, Olivera, & Zwickl, 2017) and gesture analysis (Scherr, 2008).
There were also much discussion on the transferable skills training at the postgraduate level (e.g. Bromley,
Boran, & Myddelton, 2007; Gilbert et al. 2004; Parker, 2012; Leak et al., 2017; Cargill, 2004). In particular,
the study by Leak et al. (2017) noted certain characteristics of how physics postgraduate students perform
problem solving, where students often seek help from their peers or people that are close to them to solve
complex problems. O’Byrne, Mendex, Sharma, Kirup, and Scott (2008) surveyed graduates of PhD physics
degrees as well as their employers on their perception of postgraduate physics education. According to the
survey findings, graduates felt that the most positive aspects of their education were the opportunities they
had to take ownership of their PhD project within an environment that provided them with good supervision
and the collaborative support, while employers indicated that there was a significant deficiency in oral and
written communication skills among the graduates. Both these studies emphasise the importance of
interpersonal and communication skills, as well as the opportunity for and the experience in collaborative
work in postgraduate physics education.
In this work, authentic tasks were implemented for a postgraduate applied physics course in the National
University of Singapore (NUS), based on the authentic learning guidelines by Herrington and Herrington
(2006). The research question is whether this implementation enhances the training of transferable research
skills. Authenticity in this work is based on the context of a post-PhD research career. The practices of applied
physics research and the discourse at a scientific conference were simulated as part of the continuous
assessment component of the course. Three main tasks were incorporated into the course: (a) literature review
on a specific topic related to the course, (b) creation of a group poster and (c) giving individual oral
presentations, in a format similar to paper presentation sessions at a conference. A poster session was also
organised to allow groups to mingle and view the posters of other groups. The aim was for students to gain
experience in teamwork, interpersonal communication, as well as the articulation of ideas to their peers
during group meetings. Students will also be exposed to complex real-life research questions, the problems
encountered, and the methods and steps of how they are resolved by actual researchers. This constitutes an
illustration of how students can apply the knowledge gained during class in a real-life setting.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
ANOVA analysis of selected end-of-term student feedback questions over 9 academic years was conducted
to test whether there is significant impact when the course adopted this authentic learning structure from a
previously more traditional course structure. Results indicate that there was significant impact on the students’
perceptions on three areas: the provision of timely and useful feedback, the encouragement of independent
and self-directed learning, and the overall effectiveness of teaching. This authentic learning structure,
however, had no significant impact on the enhancement of thinking ability as well as on increase in levels of
interest in the subject matter.
Keywords
Authentic learning, postgraduate education, applied physics education
References
Adams, W.K., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D., & Wieman, C. E. (2006). New
instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning
Attitudes about Science Survey. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 2(1),
010101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010101
Bromley, A. P., Boran, J. R. & Myddelton, W. A. (2007). Investigating the baseline skills of research students
using a competency-based self-assessment method. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(2), 117–
137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787407077992
Cargill, M. (2004). Transferable skills within research degrees: a collaborative genre-based approach to
developing publication skills and its implications for research education. Teaching in Higher
Education, 9(1), 83–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000155858
Dewey, I. D. H., Boyle, C. F. & Monarch I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science
Education, 76(6), 615–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760605
Gilbert R., Ballati, J., Turner, P. & Whitehouse, H. (2004). The generic skills debate in research higher
degrees. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 375–388.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000235454
Herrington, A. & Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic Learning Environments in Higher Education, Pennsylvania:
Information Science Publishing.
Leak, A. E., Rothwell, S. L., Olivera, J. & Zwickl, B. (2017). Examining problem solving in physics-intensive
PhD research. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13, 020101.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020101
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
O’Byrne, J., Mendex, A., Sharma, M., Kirup, L., & Scott, D. (2008). Physics Graduates in the Workforce: Does
Physics Education Help? Paper presented to the Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) 18th National
Congress, Adelaide, Australia, 30 November–December.
Parker R. (2012). Skill development in graduate education. Molecular Cell, 46(4), 377–381.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2012.05.003
Scherr R.E. (2008). Gesture analysis for physics education researchers. Physical Review Special Topics –
Physics Education Research, 4(1), 010101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010101
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Piaget Room, CDTL
11:45am-12:05pm
Evaluation of peer assessment in the technology-enhanced teaching of patient presentation skills
HAN Zhe
Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science
Pharmacists are required to present patient information and therapeutic plans to colleagues and other
healthcare providers (ACCP, 2014; SPC, 2018a). As such, pharmacy students must demonstrate competency
in such skills prior to registration, per competency standards set by the Singapore Pharmacy Council (SPC,
2018b).
At the National University of Singapore (NUS), undergraduate pharmacy students are exposed to patient
presentation skills in the module PR3137 “Pharmacy Professional Skills Development III”. They learn in an
authentic environment using mock electronic medical records and engage in active learning by conducting an
anonymous peer assessment of their classmates’ audio-recorded patient presentations using a standardised
assessment rubric. Peer assessment is an important facilitator of positive learning outcomes in higher
education (Schneider & Preckel, 2017) and had been successfully implemented in many pharmacy education
contexts (Storjohann, Raney, & Buckley, 2015; Bartelme & Brown, 2016). However, its use in teaching patient
presentation skills and students’ accuracy in assessing their peers have not been thoroughly studied.
The objectives of this study are to describe undergraduate pharmacy students’ attitudes and perception of
peer assessment as a pedagogical strategy in learning patient presentation skills and to evaluate their
accuracy in assessing patient presentations as compared to faculty and post-graduate teaching assistants
(PG-TAs).
A cross-sectional study was conducted with a convenience sample of 178 students enrolled in PR3137 in
Academic Year (AY) 2018/19. Patient presentation was taught over 4 sessions: 1) a didactic lecture with a
patient case, 2) a workshop to demonstrate conducting peer assessment, 3) an in-class discussion with faculty
followed by peer assessment of individual patient presentation audio recordings, and 4) a one-on-one
patient presentation with faculty or PG-TAs which was also audio-recorded for peer assessment.
An anonymous self-administered survey was conducted to assess students’ attitudes and perception of peer
assessment. Patient presentation marks assigned via peer assessment or by faculty or PG-TAs for
presentations delivered in Session 4 were also compared to assess students’ accuracy in assessing patient
presentations. This study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board (Reference Code: S-
18-089).
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
A total of 161 students completed the survey (response rate: 90%). According to the survey findings, students
believed peer assessment was a useful way to obtain feedback (93%). Most reported receiving constructive
feedback from their peers (77%) that improved their patient presentation skills (67%). While most students
trusted their peers to provide honest feedback (90%), they were less confident of their skills in doing so
(90% versus 76%, p<0.01).
Qualitative comments suggested that students appreciated peer assessment as a pedagogical strategy that
exposes them to different perspectives (e.g. “I learned about other treatment options”). It also allowed
students to learn by reflecting on their own mistakes (e.g. “I realised that I missed out on many points for my
own patient presentation while I was going through my peer’s presentation”). However, some expressed
concerns over the quality of feedback received (e.g. “some peers gave half-hearted feedback that defeated
the purpose”).
Patient presentation marks were evaluated for 110 students (62%) who provided informed consent. Total
patient presentation marks assigned via peer assessment were lower than the marks awarded by faculty or
PG-TAs (61% versus 73%, p<0.01). This difference was explained by students’ stricter assessment of their
peers’ presentation styles, as evident from lower marks in this area (59% versus 86%, p<0.01). Marks on
therapeutic content of the patient presentation were comparable between peer assessment and faculty or
PG-TAs (63% versus 65%, p=0.09).
The results of this study indicate that peer assessment was a useful pedagogical strategy for teaching patient
presentation skills and allowed students to learn from their peers’ with different knowledge and styles. With
a standardised assessment rubric, students were consistent with faculty or PG-TAs in assessing the accuracy
of therapeutic content but were more critical in assessing subjective areas such as presentation style.
Keywords
Peer assessment, patient presentation, pharmacy skills, technology-enhanced
References
American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) (2014). Standards of practice for clinical pharmacists.
Pharmacotherapy, 34(8), 794-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1438
Bartelme, K. M., & Brown, M. C. (2016). Development and evaluation of students’ skills critiquing clinical
documentation. Innovations in Pharmacy, 7(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v7i1.422
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A
systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565-600.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000098
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Singapore Pharmacy Council (SPC). (2018a). Pharmacists in the Delivery of Healthcare. Retrieved from
http://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/content/hprof/spc/en/topnav/about_pharmacists.html.
Singapore Pharmacy Council (SPC). (2018b) Competency Standards and Examination/ Assessment.
Retrieved from
http://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/content/hprof/spc/en/topnav/standards_exams/competenc
y_standards_and_examination.html.
Storjohann, T., Raney, E., & Buckley, K. (2015). Assessment of a revised method for evaluating peer-guided
assignments in a skills-based course sequence. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(8),
123. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe798123
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Dewey Room, CDTL
1:45pm-2:05pm
Fostering interdisciplinarity through blended learning
Rafi RASHID1* and Mingxun LIM1, 2 1Graduate School for Integrative Sciences & Engineering
2Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Many of the complex problems that we currently face in higher education teaching and learning necessitate
an interdisciplinary approach. However, there is still a strong emphasis on discipline-based education in most
universities. Therefore, the need to train students to deal effectively with such real-world problems is gaining
urgency (Bosch, 2018). Recent calls for a reform of doctoral programmes assert that innovative thinking
across interdisciplinary boundaries is a key skill for the 21st century (Bosch & Casadevall, 2017). Furthermore,
to make learning more effective, what is also needed is an active learning context that strongly promotes
passionate student engagement and genuine meaning-making (Bosch & Casadevall, 2017).
A key feature of the National University of Singapore’s Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and
Engineering (NGS) is a curriculum that endeavours to cultivate a keen interest in interdisciplinary research
amongst its PhD students, who come from a wide variety of disciplines. This is achieved, for example, through
a mandatory course titled “Interface Sciences & Engineering” in which students are exposed to several
research areas that involve more than one discipline. However, this course has so far been characterised by
didactic instruction and assessment modes that prioritise content knowledge, with relatively less attention paid
to the cultivation of interdisciplinarity as a skill. As a result, the learning tends to be more passive than active
and the process of interdisciplinarity is not explicitly taught. Moreover, our students’ have a general tendency
to be reserved during face-to-face classes, which has the effect of inhibiting collaborative discussions that
are otherwise essential to any interdisciplinary activity.
In a previous study, we combined authentic learning elements, interdisciplinary learning theory, and blended
learning to redesign only one topic within the above course. In that study we found that students performed
better on a single topic conducted in a blended learning mode than on another topic that followed the
traditional didactic format. Given this positive outcome, we decided to extend blended learning to other
topics to foster interdisciplinarity more effectively and help students achieve the overall learning objectives.
We made further modifications to the module by splitting the above topic into two new topics: Introduction
to Interdisciplinarity (Topic 1) and Microbiomes and Sustainability (Topic 2).
As a new feature, we designed “thinking questions” based on the “Toolbox Project”, a set of questions
designed to elicit the metaphysical and epistemological views of collaborating scientists (Eigenbrode et al.,
2007). These questions are meant to provide structure to face-to-face group discussions and encourage
student teams to adopt a philosophical approach towards evaluating their projects (O’Rourke & Crowley,
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
2013). Most students agreed that Topic 1 helped improve their understanding of interdisciplinarity. Our
students responded positively to our thinking questions because they believed that the questions were helpful
and relevant to them as scientists and engineers. They also claimed that the questions had the added
advantage of facilitating their asynchronous forum discussions. The interview responses suggested that these
questions helped students think about their own discipline more critically, which is what the questions were
designed to do. At the same time, hearing their classmates’ responses also helped them learn more about
other disciplinary perspectives, which is crucial in any interdisciplinary collaboration.
The survey and interview responses suggested that the blended learning format in Topic 1 helped prepare
students for the online and face-to-face activities of Topic 2. Furthermore, when we analysed their
presentation scores for Topic 2, we found that students performed better under blended learning compared
to the traditional didactic format. Generally, our students felt that instructor feedback, peer feedback and
micro-lectures promoted interdisciplinary thinking. Overall, the findings from both of our studies suggest that
blended learning promotes interdisciplinary collaboration in a diverse postgraduate classroom.
Keywords
Blended learning, interdisciplinarity, PhD students, scaffolding, collaboration
References
Bosch, G. (2018). Train PhD students to be thinkers not just specialists. Nature, 554(7692), 277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01853-1
Bosch, G., & Casadevall, A. (2017). Graduate Biomedical Science Education Needs a New Philosophy.
MBio, 8(6), e01539-01517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01539-17
Eigenbrode, S. D., O'Rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J. D., Althoff, D. M., Goldberg, C. S., Merrill, K., . . . Bosque-
Pérez, N. A. (2007). Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science. BioScience, 57(1),
55-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/B570109
O’Rourke, M., & Crowley, S. J. (2013). Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of
the Toolbox Project. Synthese, 190, 1937-1954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0175-y
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Piaget Room, CDTL
1:45pm-2:05pm
Why do students perform the way they do? Uncovering the truth with eye-tracking technology
Joseph XU Weijian, KOH Mun Yee Sarah and FOONG Weng Chiong Kelvin*
Faculty of Dentistry
Bloom illustrated that majority of students have the potential to achieve a higher level of learning if
instructional practices were tailored to each student (Bloom, 1984). However, with such diversity in student
abilities in the classroom, the challenge to address students’ unique learning needs with conventional teaching
approaches, though substantial (Wiliam, 2011), is surmountable. For example, in developing novices’ X-ray
interpretation skills, customising the training that could lead to improved diagnostic performance requires
insight into how a novice reads X-rays. Such insight was gleaned from a collaborative study between NUS
Dentistry (DEN), NUSMED Diagnostic Radiology (RAD), and Nanyang Polytechnic’s (NYP) Dental Hygiene and
Therapy programme. Funded by the Ministry of Education’s Tertiary Education Research Fund (MOE TRF), the
programmatic research study aims to leverage on eye-tracking technology to (i) investigate the discrepancy
in students’ performance in interpreting X-rays, and (ii) to enhance the inclusivity of teaching practices by
providing formative feedback customised to each student. This paper also seeks to surface the challenges
faced by the research team during implementation.
Using eye-tracking technology as an objective measure to track the students’ eye-gaze and fixations,
instructors are now able to gain insights into each students’ approach to reading an X-ray. This adds a new
dimension to the kind of feedback that instructors can provide, allowing them to better address the strengths
and shortcomings of each student. According to numerous studies, feedback is recognised as the most
influential method of learning as it not only indicates gaps between desired and actual performance of a
task, it also allows for correction of approaches and strategies adopted to accomplish that task (Hattie &
Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). This study thus seeks to investigate the effectiveness of feedback, enhanced
with eye-gaze and fixation data, in increasing the accuracy and efficiency of X-ray interpretation in students.
For studies conducted with DEN and RAD, participants were divided into senior and junior groups. Their
performance was monitored over multiple sets of X-ray interpretation exercises. Answers were given to all
participants after each set, with the junior group receiving additional formative feedback.
Preliminary results showed that formative feedback did not lead to significant improvements in performance
in interpreting X-rays for the junior groups in DEN and RAD. In contrast, senior groups who did not receive
formative feedback reported significant improvements in performance. While the results seem to present a
different picture regarding the effectiveness of formative feedback, such an instructional approach should
not be immediately dismissed as having fallen short. It is crucial to reflect upon the experimental design of
the research and analysis of the results to uncover any factors that might have confounded the outcome.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Inherent in any collaborative study were operational challenges that accompanied the execution of the
project. Some challenges common to typical research were that of participant recruitment, experiment
scheduling, obtaining approval from the institutional review board, and financial constraints. With the
experimental design adopted, the team faced some challenges unique to the research. For example, the
team faced difficulties obtaining input from busy instructors required for the construction of feedback. There
were also hardware limitations such as the eye-tracker providing differing qualities of data (i.e. percentage
eye-gaze data captured, calibration accuracy etc.) for participants with different physical traits.
The eye-tracking findings from this study is an example that fellow educators can reflect upon when
conducting future studies that aim to introduce more inclusive practices in teaching to cater to diverse student
learning needs. In implementing the collaborative study, the research team also learnt that while it is crucial
to control for confounding factors to ensure a robust research design, it is not possible to predict the types
of challenges or hiccups that might surface during the study. Documenting the challenges and how these were
addressed provides a record of the team’s self-reflection process, which is essential to the success of a
collaborative research endeavour.
Keywords
Formative feedback, eye-tracking, diagnostic radiology, technology, X-ray interpretation
References
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-
to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175554.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F003465430298487
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654307313795
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
1:45pm-2:05pm
Design charrette pedagogy in flipped classroom to enable creative exploration outside design studio: A case of Environmental Systems
module in architecture education
Noopur JOSHI* and LAU Siu-Kit
Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment
In the current Architecture programme, traditional lectures disseminate domain-specific knowledge and
students are expected to integrate it into their design studios (Nicol & Pilling, 2005). Non-studio modules
focus on developing conceptual understanding, while the studio requires students to engage in creative
decision-making. One common challenge students face in design studios is that they struggle to apply the
domain knowledge to creative studio tasks and thus, the knowledge remains limited to examinations. In
addition, studios are laden with the responsibility of integrating multiple domain knowledge into a single
design inquiry that makes it difficult for students to experiment with ideas relating to each domain entirely,
in this case, ‘Environmental Systems’.
The flipped classroom, a blend of e-learning and face-to-face teaching (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004), with
an appropriate teaching pedagogy can transform the way domain modules are taught in the creative
architecture environment (Elrayies, 2017). The pedagogy usually applied in the studio, learning-by-doing
(Ghaziani, Montazami, & Bufton, 2013), whereby students construct knowledge by engaging in activities to
make sense of new information (King, 1993), can be applied to non-studio modules to allow them to practice
knowledge application and creative exploration in simple design tasks such as the design charrette (Walker
Jason, 2008) during the face-to-face portion of the domain-specific module.
Charrette is a learning activity in which students work and discuss in groups to find solutions to a time-based
design problem. The design process is an interactive cycle of “design-analyse-evaluate-redesign”, where
students critically analyse their designs based on knowledge rationale and evaluate their work against priori-
criteria to make improvements. This process of critiquing, known as design crit, is essential in creative decision-
making (Hokanson, 2012).
This presentation seeks to solicit feedback on the design of a study the authors intend to conduct in Semester
2 of AY 2019/20 to measure the impact of ‘design-charrette and crit’ pedagogy in flipped classrooms on
students’ ability to creatively design environmental systems. A quasi-experimental mixed method study will
be conducted with Year 3 undergraduate architecture students taking the module AR3721 “Environmental
Systems and Modelling”. Previous Year 3 students will form the historic control group against which the results
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
of creativity will be tested. For the treatment using the flipped classroom, video lectures will be used to
disseminate the subject knowledge prior to the design charrette. In class, students will work in groups to
actively explore creative solutions to predetermined design problems. At the end of each session, students
will engage in group crit to evaluate peer work. Students’ creativity will be measured on a rubric developed
for the study that will measure the creative process and product. Interviews at the end of the semester will
be conducted to triangulate the findings. Students will be able to try radical ideas practically under the
tutor’s guidance, and the availability of such support will increase their confidence to apply the same in their
design studio projects.
It is anticipated that the findings of this study will shed light on the extent to which the ‘design charrette’
pedagogy in flipped classroom model would improve students’ ability to creatively design building systems;
based on the constructivist theory of learning.This study features a robust educational model that can be
applied to other domain-specific modules to foster sustainable design in the architecture curriculum by
promoting integrated and innovative building system design, nurturing future leaders in architecture and
construction, and reinforcing the S.T.E.A.M1 educational model (Ng, 2018).
Endnote
1. S.T.E.A.M. is a new educational model proposed by the Ministry to Education to include Arts as a
core faculty into the existing S.T.E.M. (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) model. Art
is added to the curriculum to draw on design principles and to encourage creative solutions.
Keywords
Design education, flipped classroom, design charrette, creativity, architecture
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
References
Elrayies, G. M. (2017). Flipped learning as a paradigm shift in architectural education. International
Education Studies, 10(1), 93-108. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n1p93
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher
education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Ghaziani, R., Montazami, A., & Bufton, F. (2013). Architectural design pedagogy: Improving student learning
outcomes. Paper presented at the AAE Conference, Nottingham Trent University, U.K, 4-5 April.
Hokanson, B. (2012). The design critique as a model for distributed learning. In L. Moller and J.B. Huett
(Eds.), The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained learning (pp. 71-83). New York:
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_5
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781
Ng, C. M. (2018). MOE FY2018 Committee of Supply Debate Response by Minister for Education (Schools)
[Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/moe-fy2018-committee-of-
supply-debate-response-by-minister-for-education-schools---mr-ng-chee-meng.
Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2005). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism: Taylor &
Francis.
Walker Jason, B. (2008). Utilizing the design charrette for teaching sustainability. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(2), 157-169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370810856305
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Dewey Room, CDTL
2:10pm-2:30pm
Using a social annotation tool in the Ideas and Exposition Module (IEM) classroom
Marissa Kwan Lin E
Centre for English Language Communications
The inclusive education pilot study described here aims to examine the practicality and usefulness of a social
annotation (SA) tool, Hypothes.is, in the context of an Ideas and Exposition Module (IEM). Hypothes.is allows
for annotations to be made on a webpage by users via an installed application (app) on a computer’s web
browser. Using the Hypothes.is platform thus enables groups of readers and writers to “proofread, provide
corrective feedback, peer review, mark key points and assess and measure knowledge and application
abilities” (Lebow, Lick, & Hartman, 2009; as cited in Mendenhall & Johnson, 2010, p. 264). This study is
situated within the context of inclusive education in higher education (see Moriña, 2017), and is based on
“Checkpoint 5.1 Use Multiple Media for Communication” from the Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
framework (CAST, 2018) that encourages the use of multiple media.
The rationale for this study stems from an oft-cited issue by students in the IEM programme about how their
coming from different faculties, with little to no exposure to the academic content area relevant to the IEM,
can pose challenges for them. The specific academic content in this type of module can be considered
“threshold concepts” (Meyer & Land, 2006), since this content is challenging yet necessary for students to
engage effectively with both assigned academic journal articles (written by academics for an academic
audience) and in-depth articles from non-academic sources (written by expert laypersons for an educated
non-academic audience). Thus, SA tools like Hypothes.is, with their potential to leverage on learner-
centredness, knowledge-centredness, informal assessment and community centredness (Mendenhall & Johnson,
2010; Novak, Razzouk & Johnson, 2012), can potentially help students engage with and better understand
the specific academic content needed in an IEM.
The particular context of this study is the IEM UTW1001A “Identities and Ideas in Market-Driven Societies”.
It focuses on using neoliberalism and its associated concepts as specific academic content to teach general
skills in academic expository writing, adopting a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach
(Marsh, 2002). An initial pre-course survey indicated that most respondents were unfamiliar with the module
content. Quite a few also expressed concern about whether they could grapple with the content required by
the module.
Students utilised Hypothes.is during class time over a period of two weeks, with tutor supervision, to answer
selected questions in their tutorial handouts. Based on the annotations obtained from Hypothes.is, it was
observed that students were engaging with the web texts assigned in a variety of ways. These included
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
answering the assigned tutorial questions and replies to annotations made by other students and the tutor
(see Figure 1 below). In addition, student artefacts such as the mind-maps they produced about neoliberalism
and concepts related to neoliberalism following this two-week period showed evidence of their
understanding of, and engagement with the specific academic content required for the module. Furthermore,
textual analysis of UTW1001A’s final assignments showed that despite belonging to different faculties,
students had utilised the threshold concepts relevant to the module appropriately and constructively. A follow-
up survey conducted soon after the intervention also showed a significantly positive response towards the
utilisation of Hypothes.is.
Therefore, the findings of this pilot study indicate that the employment of SA tools can potentially serve as
a complementary teaching and learning tool, whereby digital media can be used together with other types
of learning material, media and methods since it can potentially help students from diverse disciplinary
backgrounds reach a required level of understanding of threshold concepts in an IEM 1000 module.
Moreover, there is the added advantage of extended applicability for students, since the SA tool can help
facilitate collaboration, peer learning and active engagement with assigned readings in other modules.
Figure 1. Student and tutor annotations
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Keywords
Social annotation tools, threshold concepts, Universal Design for Learning, peer learning, active learning
References
CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2. Retrieved from
http://udlguidelines.cast.org.
Lebow, D. G., Lick, D. W., & Hartman, H. (2009). New Technology for Empowering Virtual Communities. In
M. Pagnani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Multimedia and Technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 1066-1071). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global.
Marsh, D. (Ed.) (2002). CLIL/EMILE the European Dimension. University of Jyväskylä.
Mendenhall, A. & Johnson, T. E. (2010). Fostering the development of critical thinking skills, and reading
comprehension of undergraduates using a Web 2.0 Tool coupled with a learning system. Interactive
Learning Environments, 18(3), 263-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.500537
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: An Introduction. In J. H.
F. Meyer and R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and
Troublesome Knowledge (pp. 3-18). Abingdon and New York, NY: Routledge.
Moriña, A. (2017). Inclusive education in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964
Novak, E., Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). The educational use of social annotation tools in higher
education: A literature review. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 39-49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.09.002
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Piaget Room, CDTL
2:10pm-2:30pm
Assessing learning outcomes of embedding leadership communication skills in an information systems leadership course
OH Lih Bin
Department of Information Systems and Analytics, School of Computing
Chitra SABAPATHY
Centre for English Language Communications
This disruptive age calls for new ways to teach and learn leadership skills. While some institutes of higher
learning have responded to this call by offering either leadership content or leadership communication
courses, or focusing more on one discipline than the other (e.g., Yong & Ashman, 2019), a more holistic and
future-proof approach will better prepare current learners for future leadership roles. This research discusses
the course design process and impact of a collaborative effort between two disciplines to embed leadership
content with leadership communication skills and addresses an increasing call in recent years to embed
communication skills in the curriculum (Johnson, Veitch, & Dewiyanti, 2015). This newly developed, compulsory
core module called IS3103 “Information Systems Leadership and Communication” is targeted at business
analytics, information systems (IS), and information security undergraduates from the School of Computing
(SoC). Instructors from both SoC and the Centre for English Language Communication (CELC) co-teach the
module. The course content integrates traditional leadership topics with emerging IS leadership issues and
challenges. Students learn through case studies and experiential leadership activities in lectures and tutorial
sessions offered by SoC; while CELC conducts recitation sessions to hone their leadership communication skills.
A major challenge to coordinating the communicative aspect of this module was the dearth of research on
IS leadership communication despite the pervasive need for IS leaders in this disruptive age. Aspects of
Fairhurst and Connaughton’s (2014) leadership communication value commitments were selected and three
broad strands of influential, strategic and change communication skills were systematically embedded into
IS content using Dewey’s social constructivist approaches with “wicked” problems and contextualised
workplace scenarios (Ismail & Sabapathy, 2016). To further increase the integration efforts between
leadership content and communication, the main group assignment project, set in a senior leadership decision-
making context, was deliberately designed. This project required students to be able to apply both domains
learned in class, and present the outcome in written and oral mediums to mixed target audiences.
The reflection journal, regarded as an effective pedagogical approach in the teaching of leadership
(Roberts, 2008), was also used as an end-of-course assignment in this module. We used data from four
semesters of teaching and module feedback reports, and one semester of students’ reflection essays to
identify learning outcomes of the course. We performed content analysis of the student feedback and their
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
reflections on course learning. Findings suggest that respondents found the module useful and there was
transference of communication and content skills to academic and future domains. Some students suggest that
the course was intense and they found it challenging to conceptualise the integration between the two
disciplines. These results inform efforts to further streamline and refine this module and also shed light on
important lessons and implications for similar collaborative efforts that attempt to develop students’
professional competence through the intertwining of soft skills training with domain knowledge.
Keywords
Leadership, communication skills, information systems, professional competence
References
Fairhurst, G. T. & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7-
35. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1742715013509396
Johnson, S., Veitch, S., & Dewiyanti, S. (2015). A framework to embed communication skills across the
curriculum: A design-based research approach. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice,
12(4). Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol12/iss4/6/.
Ismail, N. & Sabapathy, C. (2016). Workplace simulation: An integrated approach to training university
students in professional communication. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(4),
487-510. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329490616660814
Roberts, C. & Westvill, I. N. (2008). Developing future leaders: The role of reflection in the classroom.
Journal of Leadership Education, 7(1), 116-130. Retrieved from
https://journalofleadershiped.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/7_1_Roberts.pdf.
Yong, E. & Ashman, P.J. (2019). Integration of the structured development of communication skills within a
chemical engineering curriculum at the University of Adelaide. Education for Chemical Engineers, 27,
20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.12.002
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
2:10pm-2:30pm
Reflections on Practice: Technology-enhanced strategies to promote long-term student learning
Mrinal MUSIB
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
I have always been a strong proponent of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) and believe that the
appropriate and relevant use of technology can significantly enhance long-term student learning and thus
help educators attain both student- and module-related learning outcomes. TEL can also promote the
efficiency of classroom lectures and help student gain a better understanding of the lecture/tutorial topics
being discussed. I have employed TEL strategies to enhance the teaching-learning process in my classes. In
this presentation, I will describe the TEL strategies I have adopted and demonstrate their effects on student
learning. I will describe three strategies, namely,
1. Using 3D printed medical device prototypes to promote tactile and visual learning. This strategy
was implemented through the robust development of 3D printed medical devices and using them as
a means to communicate and explain critical yet fundamental engineering concepts (Pikkarainen,
Salminen, & Piili, 2017; Felder, & Silverman, 1988; Garas, Vaccarezza, Newland, McVay-
Doornbusch, & Hasani, 2018; Lara-Prieto, Bravo-Quirino, Rivera-Campa, & Gutiérrez-Arredondo,
2015; Pandey & Zimitat, 2007).
2. Creating and integrating scenario-based learning strategies for long-term student learning. Here
I create scripts and plays which encompass various ethical contexts and scenarios that our students
may face in their professional careers. Some fun and humour has been added to the scenarios and
also during the classroom discussions, to promote active learning and make it enjoyable for students
(Beaton, 2009; Cheesman, 2006; DeNeve & Heppner, 1997; Tay & Musib, 2017; Musib, 2014;
Musib, 2019a; Musib, 2019b).
3. Using artificial intelligence and virtual reality (AI/VR) in lectures to promote student learning.
In this strategy, I used AI/VR to explain fundamental engineering concepts which are otherwise
difficult to accomplish through traditional lectures and Powerpoint slides, particular if the concepts
involve 3D objects/medical devices (Musib et al., 2017).
These are my reflections on the implementation of various TEL strategies in my teaching and I will share both
qualitative and quantitative data as evidence of their effectiveness in enhancing the student learning process.
The evidence for effectiveness of the individual TEL strategies adopted were collected through various means.
They included student interviews (conducted many months following the conclusion of the module to ensure
they could still remember and relate to their past learning), focus group discussions, student feedback
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
exercises (comprehensive feedback forms were developed consisting of both qualitative and quantitative
questions for each of the strategies adopted), as well as my own reflections. The results were very
encouraging, with majority of students indicating that these technologies enhanced their learning and level
of understanding of the module content.
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided through CDTL, the NUS Teaching Enhancement Grant (TEG), and the Faculty of
Engineering (FoE) Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) grants.
Keywords
Technology enhanced learning (TEL), scenario-based learning (SBL), long-term learning (LTL), Artificial
intelligence/virtual reality (AI/VR), tactile and visual learning (TVL)
References
Beaton, C. (2009). Creative ways to teach ethics and assess learning. In Frontiers in Education Conference,
2009. FIE'09. 39th IEEE (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Cheesman, K. (2006). Using comics in the science classroom: A pedagogical tool, Journal of College Science
Teaching, 35(4), 48–51. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42991806.
DeNeve, K. M., & Heppner, M. J. (1997). Role play simulations: The assessment of an active learning
technique and comparisons with traditional lectures. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 231-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01243718
Felder, R., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering
Education, 78(7), 674–681.
Garas, M, Vaccarezza, M., Newland, G., McVay-Doornbusch, K., & Hasani, J. (2018). 3D-printed
specimens as a valuable tool in anatomy education: A pilot study. Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer
Anzeiger, 219, 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2018.05.006
Lara-Prieto, V., Bravo-Quirino, E., Rivera-Campa, M., & Gutiérrez-Arredondo, J. (2015). An innovative self-
learning approach to 3D printing using multimedia and augmented reality on mobile devices.
Procedia Computer Science, 75, 59-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.206
Musib, M. (2014). Student perceptions of the impact of using the flipped classroom approach for an
introductory-level multidisciplinary module. CDTL Brief, 17(2), 15-20.
Musib, M. (2019a). Enhancing undergraduate students’ learning of ethics through relevant lecturer-
developed skits/plays and animated comics for longer-term learning. Asian Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2) (accepted November 2019).
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Musib, M. (2019b). Creating and integrating relevant educational cartoons with scenario-based learning
strategies to impart long-term ethics learning. Int. J Innovation and Learning, 25(1), 50-63.
Musib, M., Wang, F., Tarselli, M. A., Yoho, R., Yu, K., Andrés, R. M…Sharafeldin, I. M. (2017). Artificial
intelligence in research. Science, 357(6346), 28-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.357.6346.28
Pandey, P., & Zimitat, C. (2007). Medical students' learning of anatomy: Memorisation, understanding and
visualisation. Medical Education, 41(1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02643.x
Pikkarainen, A., Salminen, A., & Piili, H. (2017). Creating learning environment connecting engineering
design and 3D printing. Physics Procedia, 89, 122-130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2017.08.020
Pivatidevi P, Suleiman, SN, Narayanamurthy, K, & Musib, M. (2019). Going beyond powerpoint; Using 3D
printed medical device prototypes to promote ‘tactile’ and ‘visual’ learning. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Tay, A. & Musib, M. (2017). To MOOC or not to MOOC: A review of strategies to manage high attrition in
MOOC participation. Asian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 67-82.
Retrieved from http://nus.edu.sg/cdtl/docs/default-source/engagement-
docs/publications/ajsotl/archive-of-past-issues/year-
2017/v7n1_may2017/pdf_vol7n1_mrinalkmusibandytay.pdf.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Dewey Room, CDTL
2:35pm-2.55pm
Smart devices, smart learning: Winning students’ attention in large classes
CHIAN Siau Chen
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
The traditional mode of lecture delivery has been heavily criticised for being a one-way form of
communication that does not involve student participation. This is an increasingly pressing problem nowadays
as students have more distractions and are less attentive. This has led to university educators incorporating
visuals such as pictures and videos into their teaching materials to capture students’ attention and sustain
levels of interest in the subject matter. The most recent attempts were aimed at encouraging higher levels of
student participation in small group classes. For large classes, such two-way engagement is limited and the
conventional lecture style, where the lecturer stands in front of the theatre and recites information, is still
prevalent on most campuses. In that case, should we do away with lectures completely?
Technology enhanced learning can potentially overcome the issues cited earlier and open up high quality
learning experiences for students and enhance the effectiveness of their learning. This is in line with the vision
put forth by the Global Learning Council (GLC) in 2016 (NUS News, 2016). Similar initiatives were also
introduced in other higher education institutions such as MIT (MIT News, 2016). Many technology-enabled
learning methods claim to do wonders by adopting videos and simulators, but most tackle only the mode of
delivery. Deploying technology in this way will not have the desired impact on learning unless teachers adopt
and adapt to newer pedagogical practices (Bandyopadhyay, 2013). A more effective use of technology to
enhance learning should be through the “Smart” approach. The “Smart” use of technology in learning should
extend beyond simply the mode of delivery and focus instead on raising students’ levels of understanding,
allowing them to provide feedback and thereafter tailoring the module content and pace of teaching to suit
their learning needs. In this way, learning is more effective and students have a deeper and more lasting
impression of the taught content. An initiative was hence carried out to capitalise on technology to enhance
such learning opportunities for students. This initiative was also used to address the shortcomings of large
lectures of 100 students or more in the form of interactive quiz games via the online platform Kahoot (Kahoot,
2016).
In these interactive quiz games, students would be asked to read the lecture notes before attending the
lectures. During the lecture, students have to answer some questions via Kahoot. They can submit their answers
during the lecture using their mobile devices (smartphone, tablet or laptop). At the end of the lecture, the
same quiz questions would be given to students again via Kahoot to verify whether there have been
improvements in their levels of understanding of the lecture materials. Following the quiz, statistics of students’
attempts would be shown after each question in the form of bar charts to encourage immediate feedback.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
With the assessment statistics, the lecturer can provide some degree of customised explanation to the
particular lecture class. If most students in that lecture class gave the wrong answer to a particular question,
the lecturer has an opportunity to address the error, either by rephrasing or reinforcing the relevant concepts
more thoroughly. Finally, an e-survey would be provided at the end of the quiz so students can air their
positive and negative responses to the quiz questions and lecture materials covered. This would provide the
lecturer with further feedback for the improvement of lecture materials and the mode of lecture delivery. In
some lectures, discussion topics are provided via Kahoot as checkpoints for students to reinforce and clarify
their learning through discussions during the lectures with their friends sitting around them.
From the feedback collected following each quiz and at the end of the module, it is evident that many
students enjoyed the online quizzes and felt that they were good supplements to the key concepts taught. In
addition, these quizzes allow students to immediately apply what they have learnt during the lectures. When
students experience the satisfaction of getting the correct answers to key module concepts (which were
highlighted as questions), these concepts can potentially be retained as longer term memory, and they would
eventually be able to connect the topics together and gain a broader appreciation of the module. These
would be in line with the objectives for introducing the online quizzes as part of the lecture activities. Students
gain more interest in participating in lectures and they can verify their understanding of lecture materials.
Meanwhile, the lecturer is able to provide immediate feedback and correct their misunderstanding of key
concepts. Overall, students’ opinions of the online quizzes were largely positive, with a larger percentage
giving “Excellent” and “Good” opinions of this smart learning initiative, as shown in Figure 1.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
(a) General opinion (b) Expected grade
(c) Difficulty level
Figure 1. Survey responses of students of AY2014/15 (without smart learning), and AY2015/16 and
AY2016/17 (with smart learning).
Keywords
Personal devices; technology; quiz; learning experience; self-efficacy
References
Bandyopadhyay, A. (2013). Technology integration before student outcomes: factors affecting teacher
adoption of technology in India (PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD). Retrieved
from https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/14067.
NUS News (2016, April 14). Enhance learning through technology. Retrieved from
https://news.nus.edu.sg/highlights/10273-learning-through-technology.
MIT News (2016, August 5). Using educational technology to enhance student learning. Retrieved from
http://news.mit.edu/2016/using-educational-technology-enhance-student-learning-0805.
Kahoot (2016). Make learning awesome! Retrieved from https://getkahoot.com/.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Piaget Room, CDTL
2:35pm-2:55pm
Project-centric approach and student’s metacognition in creating an authentic learning environment to enhance student’s engagement in
teaching bioinstrumentation—A case study
James Chen Yong KAH
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
BN2403 “Fundamentals of Biosignals and Bioinstrumentation” is a core module taught to a large class of
about 150 second year biomedical engineering undergraduates. This module teaches fundamental
mathematical concepts behind signal processing, bioinstrumentation, electric circuit analysis, biosensors,
bioamplifiers, and their related applications to biomedical device design. The traditional way of teaching
this module, with its heavy mathematical focus, creates an apparent dissonance between solving
mathematical equations and real-world applications using electronics, as many students are unable to relate
the concepts learnt to real-world applications in biosignal processing.
To enhance students’ engagement, we designed a more authentic learning environment for BN2403, adopting
a project-centric approach to bridge the learning divide students experience between mathematical concepts
and real-world implementations of biosignal processing. We also incorporated metacognition as a tool to
foster deep learning as part of the authentic assessment in the design-based project. Here, students were
given an opportunity to reflect and self-assess their learning through the project development process. An
authentic learning environment is especially important in engineering education to produce “work-ready”
graduates as it creates a real-world work scenario for students to better appreciate their learning through
the process of developing and evaluating a product.
This project-centric approach involves designing lectures and tutorials around the concepts that are required
to implement the design project successfully. Here, the lectures and tutorials are used to scaffold students’
learning towards solving an actual problem from the project (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Project-centric learning framework in BN2403.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Here, the students used the Arduino microcontroller to process their collected electrocardiogram (ECG) signals
as an authentic activity. To better guide the students, they were given four assignments of increasing
complexity at various milestones in the semester. Each assignment contained instructions to guide students
towards completing a certain milestone in their project. The assignments were progressive as the outcome of
each assignment was used to accomplish the subsequent one.
The supporting lectures covered not just the fundamental mathematical understanding of these operations,
which is the conventional teaching approach, but also the coding to convert the mathematical algorithms into
a programme for the microcontroller to perform the ECG signal processing task. Throughout this project,
students worked in groups, similar to real-world project teams, and did a final report and oral presentation
of their work, similar to what engineers would do in a product development setting. The ability of their codes
to process the ECG signals according to specifications provided an authentic assessment of their learning
outcomes.
Based on the student’s survey findings, examination results and focus group interviews, we concluded that this
case study on adopting a project-centric approach towards creating an authentic learning environment
helped enhance student’s levels of engagement in BN2403. The authentic learning environment in which
students worked in groups to develop a prototype device allowed the theoretical mathematical concepts
taught in lectures to be translated into practical applications and solutions. The ability of the project to allow
students to put into practice what they learnt not only resulted in improvements in their engagement in the
module content, but also enhanced their interest and perception of the module.
Furthermore, the triangulation of collated data involving assessing the quality of the student’s prototypes,
their weekly short reflections on the development process, and end-of-project meta learning reflections, as
well as findings from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) survey revealed a positive
impact of student’s metacognition on their learning and assessment, since they were able to
produceprototypes with features that were not taught to them, and the MSLQ results showed improvements
in the students’ levels of motivation in learning at the end of the course. The students’ reflections also
demonstrated that through the project, they now know a little more about themselves and their respective
learning processes.
Keywords
Authentic learning; authentic assessment; metacognition; Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ); design project.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
2:35pm-2:55pm
I have a voice: Helping students’ critical thinking be heard in an academic writing course
Daron Benjamin LOO* and Sylvia SIM
Centre for English Language Communications
In higher education academic writing, having a voice is necessary because it provides both instructors of
content and communication the basis for assessing learners’ thought processes and reasoning skills. The use
of voice involves more than just representing ideas from relevant sources; it also affects the way sources are
used to support or put forward a point. Taking on a practitioner research approach, we present three
interrelated components which may serve as evidence indicative of students’ development of voice in
academic writing, which are content, language, and organisation. The interrelationship may be represented
through content that is aligned towards a particular view, with the alignment aided by accurate register and
coherent organisation. These components are comparable to the tenets of a social constructivist approach
for academic writing, which consist of sociocultural, writer identity, and argumentative principles (McKinley,
2015).
Our presentation is based on the Intensive English course offered to students in the Faculty of Law at NUS,
who learned English as a foreign language. In this course, academic writing support is provided through the
examination of academic text features. These texts are also discussed through critical thinking instruction,
namely the dialectical thinking approach, which seeks to be a “cognitive tool for understanding complex
issues” (Tanaka & Gilliland, 2017, p. 671). This process requires writers to consider their “social role, power,
and the appropriate use of language (Tribble, 1996, pp. 12-14) and the objective of this course goes
beyond the production of grammatically accurate text—it seeks to raise awareness of the nature of writing
as a communicative event in order to form a voice. The academic texts come from the topics of financial
technology and immigration, under the notion of disruption in society.
Not long after the course started, it was discovered that these students do possess the ability to critically
examine texts; however, they found it challenging to surface a critical perspective to be able to effectively
express their voice because of the lack of such awareness and experiences. Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999)
argue that the notion of having an academic voice may be a western construct which some of these learners
are uncomfortable with as it goes against their sociocultural norms that value consensus and discourages
discord.
With these challenges, the students’ voice may be impeded. A study by Spalding, Wang, and Hu (2009)
found that it was possible to help these learners develop a voice in their writing by providing students with
opportunities to discover their voice by working on meaningful tasks. Bearing these challenges in mind, and
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
through personal conferencing, we utilised a social constructivist approach, where we sought to help students
understand (1) their own sociocultural underpinnings; (2) their expanded identities as writers in a context
where the individual’s ability to (re)construct knowledge is valued; and (3) instructed students on the inclusion
of argumentative writing style pertinent to their discipline.
To track students’ development of an academic voice, a series of surveys consisting of perceptive items and
those requiring open-ended responses was administered. Findings (n=19) indicate that the activities
encouraged participation, seen through students’ perceptions of ample opportunities to share thoughts, and
to evaluate their own views (both at 94.7%). This positive disposition is supported by students’ qualitative
responses, expressing a shift from factual reporting to more critical and analytical writing directed by their
voice. This helped them be more relevant and coherent in their writing tasks, and more importantly, to be
heard.
Keywords
Academic writing; student voice; critical thinking
References
McKinley, J. (2015). Critical argument and writer identity: Social constructivism as a theoretical framework
for EFL academic writing. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(3), 184-207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1060558
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80112-X
Spalding, E., Wang, J., Lin, E., & Hu, G. (2009). Analyzing voice in the writing of Chinese teachers of
English. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(1), 23-51. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784348.
Tanaka, J., & Gilliland, B. (2017). Critical thinking instruction in English for academic purposes writing
courses: A dialectical thinking approach. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 657-674.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.291
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Dewey Room, CDTL
3:00pm-3:25pm
Clickers to scaffold higher cognitive thinking in traditional lecture class: An evidence-based study of architecture students
LAU Siu-Kit*and Noopur JOSHI
Department of Architecture, School of Design & Environment
The Architecture programme is structured around the design studio, and includes other subject-specific courses
as supplemental programmes that help students prepare for the studio. Students spend most of their time in
the design studio in small cohorts where they engage in substantial interaction with their peers and teachers.
On the other hand, preparatory courses that develop technical knowledge and skills are taught in in large
lectures in the traditional didactic format, with a high student-teacher ratio that impedes such a synergy.
Inadequate levels of engagement and interaction lead to diminished motivation and eventually, lower student
learning outcomes. ‘Pause and Recall’ is a powerful tool to retain attention, boost motivation, and improve
performance in class (Ruhl, Hughes, & Schloss, 1987). ‘Pause and Recall’ suggests pausing intermittently in a
long lecture to assimilate and recall the taught content. It is, however, challenging to execute it efficiently in
a large class. Also, undergraduate education aims to promote higher levels of cognitive thinking and not
merely to recall subject content. Clickers are known to be an effective classroom response system (White,
Syncox, & Alters, 2011) that can be used to facilitate interaction (Bachman & Bachman, 2011) during
portions of the lecture sequence where there is a pause, without disrupting the lecture’s sequential flow.
Clickers, when coupled with an instructional strategy such as ‘prompts’ that promote the application of
concepts, can promote metacognition (Brady, Seli, & Rosenthal, 2013). A prompt is an instructional technique
which involves using questions with one or multiple correct answers to prompt in-class discussions (Burnstein &
Lederman, 2001). Metacognition affects students’ achievement goals (Vrugt & Oort, 2008) and can lead to
improved academic performance. This project aimed to increase students’ levels of engagement with the
content, tutor, and among peers in a traditional lecture setting, and consequently bring about higher cognitive
learning outcomes. The objective was to examine the effectiveness of clickers to implement ‘Pause and Recall’
in a large class and its impact on students’ approach to learning and students’ academic performance at
various cognitive levels. A mixed-method quasi-experimental study among Year 3 undergraduate students
was conducted. Students’ approach to learning (using Biggs’ R-SPQ-2F questionnaire) was measured before
and after the instruction. Students’ perception of using clickers and learning outcomes as per Bloom’s
Taxonomy was measured using a self-developed survey and quiz respectively at the end of the semester.
Qualitative analysis of students’ learning experiences was done through interviews using the random
sampling method. Results suggested that students largely attributed increased engagement (86%), improved
understanding of content (78%), and motivation (75%) to the use of clickers. Statistical non-parametric tests
showed a strong correlation between positive attitudes towards clickers and higher levels of cognitive
performance (rs= 0.246, p= 0.029). Interviews revealed that students found the lecture sessions engaging
and were eager to learn the content in greater depth. The timing and design of ‘clicker’ activities steered
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
the discussions that guided students to think deeper and led to significantly improved student learning
outcomes at higher cognitive levels. To improve higher-order cognitive learning when engagement is a
challenge in large classes can be an onerous task. However, with careful curriculum design and the help of
technology, it is possible to inculcate and enhance higher-order thinking among students in large classes.
Keywords
Pause and recall, classroom response system, interactive learning environments, student learning outcome, approach to learning
References
Bachman, L., & Bachman, C. (2011). A study of classroom response system clickers: Increasing student
engagement and performance in a large undergraduate lecture class on architectural research.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(1), 5-21. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/30542/.
Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative
study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers &
Education, 65, 56-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.001
Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher,
39(1), 8-11. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1343420
Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., & Schloss, P. J. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 10(1), 14-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088840648701000103
White, P., Syncox, D., & Alters, B. (2011). Clicking for grades? Really? Investigating the use of clickers for
awarding grade-points in post-secondary education. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 551-
561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494821003612638
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic
achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 3(2), 123-146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9022-4
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
Piaget Room, CDTL
3:00pm-3:25pm
Not in class: The seats left empty by high-ability students from low-income backgrounds
Eqtaffaq Saddam Hussain Bin GULAM HUSSAIN
Yale-NUS College
As an ethnic minority undergraduate, no one questions how I came to regard tertiary education as valuable
to the progress of underrepresented minority groups. One might suppose that the cultural and financial
benefits of tertiary education appear as self-evident to university students who identify with
underrepresented minority groups on campus. This assumption also omits any indication of how minority
groups arrived at this perception of tertiary education in the first place. Ironically, the negative implications
of this assumption are most insidious during conversations about diversity and inclusivity in tertiary education.
In a landmark study on the influence of social class over the university application behaviour of students from
differing socioeconomic backgrounds, Hoxby and Avery (2013) found that 53% of low-income students
whose grades qualify them for Harvard inevitably made the decision to forgo tertiary education completely.
This case illustrates how academia’s conversation about promoting diversity and inclusivity all too often
overlooks the influence of social class on the perception of tertiary education. Smith, Pender, and Howell
(2013) have come to identify this phenomenon as the “academic undermatch”.
By conducting a qualitative study on the college application process of low-income students, I hope to
illustrate several factors that could be utilised to circumvent the adverse effects of social class on the
perception of tertiary education, and by extension, the formation of academic aspirations. The majority of
literature on inequality in education outlines diversity and inclusivity as traits that can be gauged by changes
in student body demographics, or by redefining curriculum design. I ultimately want this paper to ignite
conversations about how universities can coordinate with pre-university institutions to better address how
social class might distort tertiary institution as a viable avenue for social mobility. From a policymaker’s
perspective, encouraging high-ability, low-income students to apply to selective colleges could break the
intergenerational transmission of poverty and decrease income disparity (Hoxby & Avery, 2013). This is also
important because vast pools of resources are constantly invested to help low-income students perform on
the same level as their peers who come from higher income households (Lor, 2018).
As a social institution, tertiary education remains embedded within deeply rooted beliefs that are themselves
connected to social norms like social class. By reinforcing certain beliefs, tertiary education might also
reaffirm the framework of social class that constrains the academic aspirations of low-income students.
Factors such as the availability and quality of information are themselves the result of the influence of social
class on the acquisition and internalisation of information about universities. Bourdieu’s (1999) concept of
habitus comes to mind, in that decisions associated with income-typical behaviour should be seen as rational
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P a p e r P r e s e n t a t i o n s
decisions relative to the constraints and conveniences of students from low-income backgrounds. Conversely,
the choice to pursue tertiary education might be influenced by cultural expectations. High-income individuals
are more likely to grow up in social and cultural environments that perceive tertiary education as the only
appropriate choice after the completion of secondary education.
By examining Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1977) view of the curriculum as a ‘cultural arbitrary’ that only serves
to propagate unequal power relations, I identify all forms of conventional curriculum-building as implicit in
recreating unequal power dynamics. However, I also account for socio constructivism’s prejudices against
curriculum design by envisioning an education system built by those without power. At this juncture, I revisit
Michael Young’s (2013) notion of powerful knowledge. Powerful knowledge, as opposed to education, could
be the theoretical basis from which we inspire minority communities to empower themselves. In terms of long-
term planning, I envision the future of Singapore’s minority communities through the organisational failures
of a robust education system in providing vulnerable communities with powerful knowledge. I will close by
elaborating on how Madrasahs, as faith-based schools with their own academic milieu, can adopt the
theoretical basis of powerful knowledge to defuse unequal power relations within their existing curriculum.
References
Hoxby, C. M., & Avery, C. (2012). The missing" one-offs": The hidden supply of high-achieving, low income
students (NBER Working Paper No. 18586). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w18586.
Smith, J., Pender, M., & Howell, J. (2013). The full extent of student-college academic undermatch.
Economics of Education Review, 32, 247–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.11.001
Lor, Y. V. (2018). Enduring inequality: How social class shapes where high-achieving students apply to college
(PhD dissertation, UC Berkeley). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8kn3q53f.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (R. Nice, trans.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
PechaKucha Presentations
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
10:55am-11:15am
Digitisation of teaching materials to complement online learning
LEE Lai Yeng Cindy
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Technology advancement and digitisation has transformed the learning and teaching environment in
institutions of higher learning around the world (Gehlen-Baum & Weinberger, 2014). Technology is often
viewed as a double-edged sword in education, potentially causing disruptions to traditional learning and
teaching models, but at the same time providing opportunities for new learning and teaching avenues. In
recent years, lecture capture or lecture recording has been widely adapted by institutions of higher learning
(Leadbeater, Shuttleworth, Couperthwaite, & Nightingale, 2013) to provide students with supplementary
resources to learn and revise independently. Lecture capture has been found to provide a platform for
inclusive learning, allowing students with different learning styles and abilities the opportunity to improve
their learning (Nightingale, Anderson, Onens, Fazil, & Davies, 2019).
For science and engineering courses, the lectures often include the presentation of notes and information in
PowerPoint, accompanied by derivations or explanations of equations or concepts by the lecturer with
writings on the blackboard, whiteboard, visualiser or directly on PowerPoint slides. One common feedback
from students regarding the lecture capture system is that often, part of the lecturers’ writing and derivations
on the whiteboard may not be captured clearly together with the recording. A consequence is that it affects
the quality of the student’s learning experience from the recorded lecture. There is a need to address this
common problem and there are in fact several technologies and avenues for digitisation and sharing of
materials developed during lectures which can improve the situation.
In this presentation, I share my experiences on a simple-to-use tool (Whitelines®) which can improve the
teaching and learning experiences for a typical science and engineering lecture which uses handwritten notes
and derivations extensively. Whitelines® allows handwritten notes to be converted to high quality digital
material in a simple and efficient way. This is possible via an accompanying mobile app that is designed to
be used for the paper, and is free for download onto any mobile device. Using Whitelines® on a visualiser
during lectures allow students to grasp the lecture content presented more efficiently. The handwritten notes
can be converted to a high quality pdf format and shared almost instantaneously with students via the mobile
app installed on the lecturer’s mobile device, as illustrated in Figure 1. This will support and enhance student’s
learning outside of the classroom when supplemented with a video recording of that lecture. In terms of
student feedback on the use of Whitelines® as a supplementary material to complement their online learning
from lecture recording, it was found to be overall positive with 93.2% indicating that they agreed or strongly
agreed that the tool was effective in helping them gain a better understanding of the subject (Figure 2).
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Figure 1. Example of digitisation of hand-written derivations and notes using Whitelines® and
its mobile app
Figure 2. Student’s feedback on the effectiveness of the supplementary materials using Whitelines® in
supporting their learning and understanding of the lecture material.
Whitelines® is one of many tools that can be used to improve student’s learning experience and performance
from lecture capture. The feedback from students who took the module indicated that it had helped to
enhance their learning. Free text comments from the module feedback included, “This is very helpful for
further understanding and to visualize the equations”, and “The scanned workings which allows us to refer
back, very informative”. From the lecturer’s perspective, students’ overall learning experience can be further
improved and supported via the use of the learning management system as a platform to communicate
module-related information and materials. The challenges and desired functionalities of the learning
management system to support student learning from the module-related resources made available to them
will be discussed further in this presentation.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Keywords
Digitisation, Whitelines®, lecture notes, lecture capture, mobile app
References
Gehlen-Baum, V., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Teaching, learning and media use in today’s lectures.
Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.049
Leadbeater, W., Shuttleworth, T., Couperthwaite, J., & Nightingale, K. P. (2013). Evaluating the use and
impact of lecture recording in undergraduates: Evidence for distinct approaches by different groups
of students. Computers and Education, 61(1), 185–192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.011
Nightingale, K. P., Anderson, V., Onens, S., Fazil, Q., & Davies, H. (2019). Developing the inclusive
curriculum: Is supplementary lecture recording an effective approach in supporting students with
Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLDs)? Computers and Education, 130(June 2018), 13–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.006
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
10:55am-11:15am
My digital journey with FA1102—Leveraging Community of Inquiry for greater inclusivity
LUU Tran Huynh Loan, Jodie
Centre for English Language Communication
Driven by the rapid development of information and communication technologies (ICTs), a new educational
landscape has emerged to respond to the new generation of learners who grew up with such technologies—
the digital natives (Prensky, 2001). In this new learning landscape, active student engagement is replacing
passive information transmission, cultivation of digital literacies is receiving more attention, and integration
of ICTs to enhance student learning is increasingly acknowledged and encouraged (International Society for
Technology in Education, 2002). From Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) to flipped or blended
classrooms, educators and learners are presented with a plethora of options as well as challenges. On one
hand, education seems to be more accessible and learning more engaging (Plump & LaRosa, 2017; Shon &
Smith, 2011; Tessier, 2013). On the other hand, the pertinent low completion rate of MOOCs despite their
popularity (Gütl, Rizzardini, Chang, & Morales, 2014) and educators’ varied opinions about ICT integration
(Li, 2018; Trentin & Wheeler, 2009; Vahedi, Zanella, & Want, 2019) pose a noteworthy question about how
to create a technology-enhanced classroom that can create a meaningful learning experience for students.
Against this backdrop, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999;
Garrison, 2011) provides illuminating guidance to the effective integration of ICTs in both online and blended
learning (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). According to the CoI framework, a sustainable community of learners
requires the presence of three dimensions: (1) teaching presence, (2) social presence, and (3) cognitive
presence. The intersection between these three dimensions is where meaningful learning experience takes
place. In practice, teaching presence is achieved when learning activities are well-designed and well-
facilitated; social presence is achieved when learners are comfortable to be who they are and engage in
open and trusting communication, and lastly cognitive presence is achieved when learners are able to
“construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999, p. 89).
This PechaKucha presentation charts an attempt to leverage the CoI framework to create a deep and
meaningful learning experience for the students in the module FAS1102 “Public Writing and Communication”.
As a flipped module, FAS1102 embraces a constructivist pedagogical perspective that views students as
“active sense makers who seek to build coherent and organized knowledge” (Mayer, 2004, p. 14). The
students have the autonomy to select a social issue in Singapore they are passionate about, embark on a
group project to dissect the issue, and identify gaps in the existing discourse about the issue they could
address with their writing and presentation. To scaffold their learning process, a range of collaborative
activities such as a group writing exercise and peer reviews are implemented. Instrumental to these activities
are collaborative tools such as Microsoft Teams and Padlet, among others. Apart from the observable active
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
student engagement, it is noted that with effective integration of ICTs, the CoI framework could potentially
cultivate a responsible and inclusive learning community.
Keywords
Community of Inquiry, ICTs in higher education, collaborative and inclusive learning community
References
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and
practice (3rd Edition). London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T, & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer
conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R. & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and
guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gütl C., Rizzardini R. H., Chang V., & Morales M. (2014). Attrition in MOOC: Lessons learned from drop-
out students. In Uden L., Sinclair J., Tao Y. H., Liberona D. (Eds), Learning Technology for Education in
Cloud. MOOC and Big Data. LTEC 2014. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol
446. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10671-7_4
International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National educational technology standards for
teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE).
Li, L. (2018). Integrating technology in ESP: Pedagogical principles and practice. In R. Muñoz & L. L.
Taillefer (Eds.), Integrating Information and Communication Technologies in English for Specific
Purposes. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68926-5_2
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for
guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Plump, C. M., & LaRosa, J. (2017). Using Kahoot! in the classroom to create engagement and active
learning: A game-based technology solution for eLearning novices. Management Teaching Review,
2(2), 151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2379298116689783
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Shon, H. & Smith, L. (2011). A review of poll everywhere audience response system. Journal of Technology
in Human Services, 29(3), 236–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2011.616475
Tessier, J. (2013). Student impressions of academic cell phone use in the classroom. Journal of College
Science Teaching 4, 3(1), 25–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst13_043_01_25
Trentin, G., & Wheeler, S. (2009). Teacher and student responses to blended environments. In E. Stacey, &
P. Gerbic (Eds.), Effective blended learning practices: Evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated
education (pp. 105-123). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-296-
1.ch006
Vahedi, Z., Zanella, L., & Want, S. C. (2019). Students’ use of information and communication technologies
in the classroom: Uses, restriction, and integration. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787419861926
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
11:20am-11:40am
Considerations for inclusive education in online curriculum design
LAM Wanli, Aileen
Centre for English Language Communications
The literature on massive open online courses (MOOCs) often focuses on completion rates of online courses
(Jordan, 2015). Many studies have looked into the reasons behind low completion rates so that educators
can consider ways to encourage participants to interact with all the online content and activities.
However, this PechaKucha aims to challenge this notion of completion in fully online courses to cater to a
diverse range of learners who (1) may choose to interact only with some parts of the course, and learners
who (2) may need extra pre-course resources as they do not have the relevant content knowledge or cognitive
ability to deal with the main course syllabus. This presentation argues that completion rates should be
dependent on the materials and activities that a learner sets out to finish at the beginning of the course
instead of a completion of all the course materials.
Inclusive education takes into account the needs of a diverse range of students with different ethnicities,
religions, gender, and abilities such as those who are underachieving or less able academically (Ainscow,
2005; Mitler, 2012). This PechaKucha argues for inclusive online education, specifically for learners with
differing interests, experiences, training and abilities. Hence, online courses such as MOOCs should provide
optional resources to support those without the relevant content knowledge due to their experiences and
training, as well as those with lower cognitive ability so that they are equipped to deal with the main course
syllabus. This allows learners to pursue their interest and regulate their own learning successfully (Littlejohn,
Hood, Milligan, & Mustain, 2016). Since optional resources are included to help learners scaffold their
understanding of the main course materials, learners can decide if they wish to or need to go through all the
materials. Hence, the focus of course completion should shift from completion of all materials to selected
materials which are determined by the learner instead of being pre-determined by the content developer.
The role of the content developer is to ensure that the course materials and activities are engaging, supports
active learning, and pushes a variety of learners to think deeper so they are engaged cognitively and
socially through interaction with tutors or peers (Walji, Deacon, Small, Czerniewicz, & Czerniewicz, 2016).
Cognition occurs when the learners interpret and process information internally according to their personal
realities (Swan, 2004) while engaging with the content.
Hence, it is important that curriculum designers scaffold learning by providing materials and tools to support
those who have a different depth of content knowledge and/or cognitive abilities so that learners can create
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
mental structures and personalise the knowledge that they gain from the main curriculum. Thus, the building
of the online curriculum should go beyond the main syllabus. Supplementary, pre-course or pre-unit materials
that target learners with little content knowledge, such as those from different disciplines or those with
differing experiences as well as materials for those with undeveloped cognitive abilities, should be provided
and clearly identified as optional foundation materials. Educators can also consider providing post-course
materials or clear indications of what learners could read or do next could, particularly for those who wish
to pursue their interest and extend their knowledge beyond the main curriculum, such as delving deeper into
specific content areas or exploring other related content areas.
In keeping with the spirit of inclusive education, online course materials should include clearly labelled
foundation materials, main course materials and post-course materials which learners can choose to interact
with depending on their interest and needs. Hence, we should rethink the idea of course completion,
especially for online courses.
Keywords
Inclusive education, curriculum design, online learning, MOOCs
References
Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for change? Journal of
educational change, 6(2), 109-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4
Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112
Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-
regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003
Mittler, P. (2012). Working towards inclusive education: Social contexts. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Walji, S., Deacon, A., Small, J., Czerniewicz, L., & Czerniewicz, L. (2016). Learning through engagement:
MOOCs as an emergent form of provision. Distance Education, 37(2), 208-223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1184400
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
11:20am-11:40am
Undergraduate teaching assistants as co-curators for the “Learning to Learn Better” module: What they did and what they learned
Hui Ru TAN1,2,3*, Aaron R. JEYARAJ1,4, Balakuru S/O MAHENDRAN1,5, Jing Yi POH1,6, Magdeline Tao Tao
NG1,7, Robert K. KAMEI1,8, Joshua J. GOOLEY1,9,10 and Fun Man FUNG1,11*
1 Institute for Application of Learning Sciences and Education Technology
2 NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering 3 Food Science and Technology Programme
4 Brown University, USA 5 Department of Chemical and Molecular Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering
6 Department of Economics, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences 7 NUS Libraries
8 Department of Paediatrics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine 9 Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke-NUS Medical School
10 Programme in Neuroscience and Behavioral Disorders, Duke-NUS Medical School 11 Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science
[email protected] and [email protected]*
How to stay motivated during college? What are proven and effective strategies to ensure long-term
retention of content? Why is pulling an all-nighter to cram for an exam an ineffective strategy? Our now
two-year-old module “Learning to Learn Better” (LTLB) seeks to answer these questions based on the latest
research in psychology and the learning sciences. Analysing key findings published in peer-reviewed journal
articles, the module instructors frame them into practical tips that students can employ to succeed in both their
studies and the learning of other skills.
Grounded in collaborative teaching, the diverse teaching team consists of instructors from among NUS faculty
and undergraduate teaching assistants (TAs). Instructors take turns to lead each lesson and the ones who are
not leading actively chip in to provide their perspectives on the topic. This adoption of a flexible and rotation-
based teaching is helpful in sustaining students’ interest in the module as they are frequently exposed to new
teaching styles from different instructors (Walters & Misra, 2013).
TAs are actively involved in the module—from planning the module’s curriculum to the execution of lessons.
TAs have the flexibility to create course materials (e.g. presentation slides and module information booklet),
given the freedom to share any relevant experiences during lectures, and are encouraged to propose new
content that would benefit undergraduates in their learning journey.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
The involvement of TAs provide faculty with insights, from the perspective of undergraduates, on the aspects
of learning students struggle the most with, and in identifying learning strategies which students are
interested to acquire. This allows the team to refine the module’s curriculum to include content that students
view as important and necessary.
Previous studies also indicated that involving student TAs in curriculum planning improved students’ levels of
satisfaction for the module (Cordner, Klein, & Baiocchi, 2012; Mihans, Richard, Long, & Felten, 2008).
Moreover, with TAs facilitating group discussions, students are given more attention and prompt feedback,
providing them with a richer learning experience (Cordner, Klein, & Baiocchi, 2012). For example, students
were to share on the IVLE (now LumiNUS) forum their learning takeaways after each lesson. The TAs would
engage students in in-depth discussions on the forum, and many interesting and thought-provoking questions
were raised. The concepts that many students find confusing, such as the difference between interleaving
and spacing techniques, were communicated to the teaching team. This prompted the instructors to include a
more detailed explanation on interleaving and spacing in their subsequent lesson plan, which helped to
clarify and reinforce these concepts.
In addition, TAs were involved in pre-lesson meetings to discuss the content to be included in the next lesson.
One of the TAs proposed an activity to demonstrate that drawing is more effective than re-writing in
achieving long-term retention of content (Rinne, Gregory, Yarmolinskaya, & Hardiman, 2011). The faculty
members were very supportive and allowed the TA to include it in the upcoming lesson. Although the class
was not entirely convinced that drawing is better than writing after completing the activity, the faculty
members were encouraging and gave constructive feedback on how to improve the activity. The teaching
team’s open-mindedness encouraged the TAs to continually explore new concepts and try new activities that
might be beneficial to students.
In this presentation, past and current TAs will share their experiences as members of the teaching team as
well as co-curators of the module. The sharing will focus on:
1. how they contributed to lesson planning and execution;
2. memorable encounters they had with students taking the course; and
3. their reflection on what they learned
Brief Description of Images
Photographs taken during class which show students participating actively in in-class activities and group
discussions, as well as the teaching team enthusiastically explaining the course material will be included in
the PechaKucha presentation. Images of group meetings and work done behind the scenes will also be
featured. The TAs will also use images to share heartwarming and memorable experiences they had with
students.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Acknowledgements
We thank Assoc. Prof. Soo Yuen Jien and Mr. Syed Abdullah from the NUS School of Computing for their
support in building the learning app “Coach L”. We thank our previous TA Jasper Chua Tee Loong for
volunteering his time as TA over two semesters. We appreciate the participation of educators from the
Department of Educational Development (EDU) at the Singapore Polytechnic, and Duke-NUS in our LTLB
lesson observations.
We also acknowledge the USPC-NUS grant (2018-01-EDU/USPC-NUS) “A Frontier in Learning Science
Educational Research Across two Nations—Learning to Learn Better (L2LB)", Yeo Sing Chen and team for
supporting the sleep research study in this course.
Keywords
Undergraduates; learning sciences; mentorship; collaboration; teaching assistants
References
Cordner, A., Klein, P. T., & Baiocchi, G. (2012). Co-designing and co-teaching graduate qualitative
methods: An innovative ethnographic workshop model. Teaching Sociology, 40(3), 215-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12444072
Mihans, I., Richard, J., Long, D. T., & Felten, P. (2008). Power and expertise: Student-faculty collaboration in
course design and the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020216
Rinne, L., Gregory, E., Yarmolinskaya, J., & Hardiman, M. (2011). Why arts integration improves long‐term
retention of content. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(2), 89-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-
228X.2011.01114.x
Walters, K., & Misra, J. (2013). Bringing collaborative teaching into doctoral programs: Faculty and
graduate student co-teaching as experiential training. The American Sociologist, 44(3), 292-301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-013-9185-6
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Appendix
This section will include some examples of images that will be featured in the presentation.
Figure S1. Some major topics and concepts covered in LTLB lessons.
Figure S2. Dr. Magdeline Ng (right), leading a group discussion to gather feedback on areas for
improvement and to understand the learning needs of students taking the module.
Figure S3. A screenshot of an email from one of the students expressing her appreciation to
Mr. Fung Fun Man after seeing vast improvement in her recent examination grades.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Figure S4. Syed (right), an undergraduate leading the Coach L initiative*, guiding students on
how to use the mobile application.
*The Coach L initiative is a collaboration between the LTLB module and NUS School of Computing to
develop a proprietary mobile application that students and instructors could use to share and access
course materials.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
11:45am-12:05pm
Students/Teachers co-creating low-cost virtual excursions and experiential learning using 3600 videos and annotation tools
Christoph Dominik ZIMMERMANN*1, Alvita ARDISARA2,3, Foon Yin FUNG4, Shaphyna Nacqiar KADER2,
Gopalakrishnakone P5, London Lucien OOI4,6, Fun Man FUNG*2,7, Afiq Bin Dolkifli8, Arvindaraj Pillay S/O
Thangaraj8, GOH Jin Yang8, Jonathan WU4, Vanessa LIM Zi Kun4, Xavier COUMOUL9, Etienne BLANC9
1 Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering 2 Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science
3 Food Science and Technology Programme, c/o Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science 4 Duke-NUS Medical School
5 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine 6 SingHealth, Singapore; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
7 Institute for Application of Learning Sciences and Education Technology 8 Singapore Institute of Technology
9 University of Paris
[email protected] and [email protected]*
Technology, used correctly, can aid students in their learning (Curley, Wu, & Svirskis, 2018). With time,
technological aids have achieved higher fidelity, progressing from 2D images over videos to interactive,
virtual reality experiences. However, videos with higher production quality or media content with higher
fidelity are not necessarily associated with better learner results (Guo, Kim, & Rubin, 2014). According to
the literature, giving students the ability to explore and interact with content enhanced through technology
(i.e. virtual reality experiences) results in experiential learning for them, which has been shown to increase
retention of content (Ti et al., 2009; Bauerle & Park, 2012).
At the same time, while creating high-fidelity interactive environments, such as in virtual reality, can yield
learning benefits for students, it is also costly, time-consuming and requires extensive skillsets, putting it out
of reach for most educators or even educational institutions (Versatile Techno, 2017). 360° videos can
provide a solution for creating interactive, engaging content at a skill and budget level that is accessible to
more educators and institutions.
In line with this, our team, a student-teacher collaboration project, used 360° videos and annotation tools to
create low-cost virtual excursions for experiential learning. Using 360º cameras and an annotation tool
(uptale.io), students and educators co-created “explorable” environments, where learners were able to
choose the direction they wanted to look at in each environment, as well as to “move” between environments.
The virtual excursions also included relevant information and other interactive elements, such as quizzes. The
topics and scenes were chosen by students and educators to ensure the best learning results.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Since creating 360º content with cameras and annotation tools requires little training and technological
literacy, students from any background can be included to co-create virtual reality content with the educators.
This co-creation is important to foster student-teacher interaction, as it shifts the role of the educators from
being instructors to enablers of learning, and students take increasing responsibility of their own learning
(Ribes-Giner, Perello-Marín, & Díaz, 2016). This in turn has a positive effect on learner control and learner
flexibility (Bowden & D’Alessandro, 2011), which has been proven in a multitude of studies (Ribes-Giner,
Perello-Marín, & Díaz, 2016). Importantly, the process of co-creation can increase student satisfaction (Ribes-
Giner, Perello-Marín, & Díaz, 2016), and is thus a vital component to effective teaching. Higher student
satisfaction has a proven, albeit not exclusively positive, effect on performance, which could be utilised to
improve the student learning experience (Alcalde & Nagel, 2015).
Another significant lesson that our project demonstrates is that co-creation of content can also serve as a
method to engage students in the creation of learning content, which give students the opportunity to interact
more with the content to be taught. This can be seen as “cognitive engagement” (Martin & Torres, n.d.) which
keeps learners invested in the content to be learned. Importantly, student engagement can be a vital tool in
addressing underperformance and student disinterest (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
Furthermore, the co-creation as well as the explorative nature of the 360° environment provide students with
a more active learning environment. Even small amounts of active learning included in the teaching have
been shown to be beneficial (de Caprariis, Barman, & Magee, 2012), leading to improved grades and
lower failure rates compared to traditional lecturing (Freeman et al., 2014). The greater level of control
afforded by explorable environments, such as those found in virtual reality—or, as we have proposed,
interactive 360º videos—has been shown to achieve increased student performance, learning effectiveness
as well as satisfaction (Ai-Lim Lee, Wong, & Fung, 2010).
In summary, we created interactive and “explorable”, low-budget experiences in a virtual reality environment.
Such experiences give students “access” and the opportunity to explore environments which are otherwise
difficult or impossible to visit in a normal classroom teaching.
In this PechaKucha presentation, we will share with the audience the benefits of using 360º videos for learning
and teaching, especially compared to virtual reality solutions. We will also share how educational 360º
content can be created and demonstrate how students can be engaged in the development process.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those who have enabled and supported this project and brought it to fruition,
especially to the following collaborators:
Assoc. Professor Peng Chung CHEOW and Professor Robert K. KAMEI from Duke-NUS
Dr. Thierry KOSCIELNIAK from Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers
We would also like to acknowledge the support given via the USPC-NUS grant (grant code 2018-02-
EDU/USPC-NUS) “Project VIPER: Virtual Reality and Innovative Pedagogy in EnRiched Environment.”
Keywords
360º video, virtual reality, experiential learning, virtual learning, technology
References
Ai-Lim Lee, E., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning
outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1424–1442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.006
Alcalde, P., & Nagel, J. C. (2015). Does active learning improve student performance? A randomized
experiment in a Chilean university. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2687217
Bauerle, T. L., & Park, T. D. (2012). Experiential learning enhances student knowledge retention in the plant
sciences. HortTechnology, 715–718. https://doi.org/10.21273/horttech.22.5.715
Bowden, J. L.-H., & D’Alessandro, S. (2011). Co-creating value in higher education: The role of interactive
classroom response technologies. Asian Social Science, 7(11).
https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n11p35
Curley, L. E., Wu, Z., & Svirskis, D. (2018). Using technology in pharmacy education: Pharmacy student
performance and perspectives when visual aids are integrated into learning. Frontiers in
Pharmacology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.01062
De Caprariis, P., Barman, C., & Magee, P. (2012). Monitoring the benefits of active learning exercises in
introductory survey courses in science: An attempt to improve the education of prospective public
school teachers. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 13-23. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1583.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state
of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement. Proceedings of
the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference - L@S ’14.
Versatile Techno (2017, December 8). How much does virtual reality development cost? [Blog post].
Retrieved from https://www.versatiletechno.com/blog/vr-development-cost.
Martin, J., & Torres, A. (n.d.). I. What Is Student Engagement and Why Is It Important? National Association
of Independent Schools.
Ribes-Giner, G., Perello-Marín, M. R., & Díaz, O. P. (2016). Co-creation impacts on student behavior.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 72–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.011
Ti, L. K., Chen, F.-G., Tan, G.-M., Tan, W.-T., Tan, J. M. J., Shen, L., & Goy, R. W. L. (2009). Experiential
learning improves the learning and retention of endotracheal intubation. Medical Education, 43(7),
654–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03399.x
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
11:45am-12:05pm
Inclusive learning in classroom curricula and activities through authentic learning pedagogy
KUAN Yee Han
Tembusu College
Different students naturally engage a module at various levels to maximise their learning, which may be
influenced by educational experiences, social environment, or even the basic cognitive structure of the
individual. In this PechaKucha presentation, I will be sharing my approach in classroom curricular design using
authentic learning to reflect inclusivity and diversity in learning. Authentic learning is an approach in which
the learning tasks and assessments are situated within the context of real world situations to maximise
learning, "allowing students to experience the same-problem solving challenges" as they would in the real
world (Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2014). Using a variety of approaches in the module design, it has made
my classroom more inclusive for students, who enroll for this module with different prior experiences and
learning strengths. This is particularly important in a residential college setting as students are enrolled in
small classroom seminar-style modules (15 students per class), which are multidisciplinary in nature.
Applying to each seminar section of the module UTS2114 “Technologies and Ageing in Singapore” that I
taught in Semester 2 of AY2018/19, students came from at least 11 different departments from 6 faculties
at NUS (Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, School of Design and Environment, Faculty of Science, NUS
Business School, Faculty of Engineering, and School of Computing). The diversity in students’ educational
background would require effort and strategies on the faculty member’s part to develop an inclusive
classroom (Sanger, 2018). This is to ensure that students are actively engaged during the classroom activities.
To enhance student engagement, I also engaged a teaching assistant (TA) who took the module previously
to assist in facilitating some sessions. This partnership helped to bridge the differences in the perspectives
and perceived learning between faculty member and students (Ouellett & Sorcinelli, 1995). I co-facilitated
some sessions with the TA, which enhanced the learning experience for students in a diverse classroom. This
observation was also highlighted in the module feedback, in which one student commented that "[the]
teaching assistant contributed greatly to class discussions".
I will elaborate further on the practical aspects involved in creating an inclusive classroom with the examples
below:
1. Variety of Learning Activities. The curriculum integrated different types of activities throughout the
semester to help students with diverse backgrounds and approaches to learning. Examples included
authentic learning activities with the ageing body suit (Figure 1), open-ended discussion with role-
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
playing on hard conversations about end-of-life care, research projects on ageing issues in
Singapore, and reflections on their learning journey.
Figure 1. A student wearing an elderly body suit.
2. Group Work and Collaboration. During class, students would support their classmates and bring
their different talents and ideas together for shared projects. It was observed that students seemed
to perform better in situations that required idea-generation, such as in brainstorming session as
seen in Figure 2. It was also observed that it seemed easier for students to speak up and not feel
judged in a small setting. The groups were also rotated in every class so that students would get to
work with different peers.
Figure 2. Questions for students to think about during their group brainstorming session in designing an
ideal nursing home for the elderly.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
3. Inclusive Participation. All students enrolled in the module were encouraged to participate in a
collective group work where each student would have the opportunity to share their ideas with their
peers. One of the facilitation tools used was Lego® Serious Play® to promote 100-100 interaction
and discussion among students as seen in Figure 3 (100% of the students participate 100% of the
time). Students were guided through a series of challenging questions and each student had the
chance to build, share, and reflect.
Figure 3. Models that were built by students collectively using LSP
In conclusion, developing an inclusive course and classroom remains an ongoing effort, and would evolve
depending on the diversity of student profiles and backgrounds. Deliberate design of the curricular and
activities using authentic learning is an approach educators can consider for their courses, especially for
students from multidisciplinary backgrounds. This is so that students can engage in meaningful discussions with
their peers and learn effectively.
Keywords
Authentic learning, experiential learning, learning styles
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
P e c h a K u c h a
References
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D.,
Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology (4th ed, pp. 401-412). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-
3185-5_32
Ouellett, M. L., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (1995). Teaching and learning in the diverse classroom: A faculty and TA
partnership program. To Improve the Academy, 14(1), 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-
4822.1995.tb00292.x
Sanger, C. S. (2018). Diversity and inclusion in curriculum and classroom. Retrieved from
https://teaching.yale-nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2019/03/Diversity-and-Inclusion-
Booklet_02.4.19-Online.pdf.
HIGHER EDUCATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE 201918 November 2019 (Monday) | CDTL & Lecture Theatre 3 (LT3)
Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning
Gallery Walk(Poster Presentations)
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
1:15pm-1:40pm
Effects of planetarium-based instruction on undergraduates learning astronomy
Ummu Sumaiyah Binte ELIASE and NG Shao Chin Cindy*
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science
Planetariums are an oft-used tool in the teaching of astronomy. Today, innovations such as the portable
fulldome have increased the accessibility and practicality of planetariums. A key focus of planetarium
education research is to analyse the value of planetarium-based instruction in different contexts. It is also
important to consider learning theories like the Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory or the Visual, Auditory, and
Kinaesthetic (VAK) theory for a more inclusive classroom (Kovalenko, 2019). While numerous studies on similar
topics have been conducted, few have targeted university students in Singapore. As age, education, and
cultural background all have effects on student learning (Cai, 2004), our study is therefore relevant to all
who wish to diversify their lesson plans using a planetarium.
With a hemispherical (domed) screen stretching from floor to ceiling in all directions in dark room, the
fulldome planetarium affords a more immersive environment for learning. The planetarium video may be
used to simulate presence and movement in an idealised space, allowing for direct demonstration of topics
that rely on spatial or 3-D thinking. (Sumners, Reiff, & Weber, 2008)
We attempt to compare the efficacy of the fulldome planetarium against the flat 2-D screen as visual aids
in teaching celestial motion to undergraduate students. 126 students participated in this study. They came
from across undergraduate levels and majors, and were reading the module GET1043 “Universe, Big Bang
and Unsolved Mysteries” offered by the National University of Singapore.
Students sat through a 0.5-hour lecture on celestial motion followed by a post-test. The lecture covered the
following topics: motion of the sun, moon, stars, and planets across the sky; the Milky Way’s shape and
appearance; the retrograde motion of planets; and lunar phases and eclipses. Data was taken across the
performance of 8 classes which were taught identical lessons using the sky simulator Stellarium: half in a
planetarium setting, and the other half in a classroom setting. Students observed the simulated motion of
celestial objects through hours, days, and years.
We used the post-test only quasi-experimental model while considering student responses for the midterm
test. Post-test questions were constructed using Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework and tested the students’
ability to recall and understand the lesson content. Quantitative data collected include the percentage of
correct answers and discrimination indices per question along with the overall score. While students across
all groups had similar overall scores, analysis of individual questions revealed that being taught in a
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
planetarium setting led to slight improvements in the quality of student learning in cases where 3-D thinking
was required, verifying previous claims (Türk & Kalkan, 2015). It was observed that what students can see
of the sky in the fulldome environment is limited by their field of view, whereas the flat projection in the
classroom presents a view of the entire sky. This could explain why classroom groups performed better than
planetarium groups in questions/cases where a full view of the sky may have been beneficial to student
learning.
Student’s background information and feedback for the lesson were collected using two surveys. The
feedback indicated that students who attended the planetarium session were more likely to responded
positively about the lesson. The feedback has also highlighted issues such as students’ levels of comfort in the
planetarium, which may affect their performance. Most students identified themselves in the survey as visual
learners, even though we observed that classrooms with more kinaesthetic learners seemed to underperform
slightly in the post-test even with the aid of a planetarium. This points towards the need for diversification of
teaching methods even with the inclusion of a planetarium as a visual aid, which is consistent with the
conclusion reached by Slater and Tatge in their review of planetarium education research (Slater & Tatge,
2017).
Statistically, our study appears to lack significance and has a low Cronbach alpha of 0.24. We suggest that
the study be repeated using a validity-tested instrument like the Test of Astronomy Standards (TOAST) (Slater,
2015). However, our research does bring up certain points of interest regarding the implementation of a
planetarium in teaching university-level students.
Keywords
Planetarium, fulldome, undergraduate, astronomy, education
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
References
Cai, J. (2004). Why do U.S. and Chinese students think differently in mathematical problem solving?:
Impact of early algebra learning and teachers’ beliefs. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(2),
135–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.03.004
Kovalenko, N. (2019). Astronomy: Learning theories applicable for education in planetarium environment.
EPJ Web of Conferences, 200, 01014. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201920001014
Slater, S. J. (2015). The development and validation of the test of astronomy standards (TOAST). Journal
of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education (JAESE), 1(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jaese.v1i1.9102
Slater, T. F., & Tatge, C. B. (2017). Affective domain research in the planetarium. In T. F. Slater & C. B. Tatge
(Eds.), Research on teaching astronomy in the planetarium (pp. 101–125).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57202-4_5
Sumners, C., Reiff, P., & Weber, W. (2008). Learning in an immersive digital theatre. Advances in Space
Research, 42(11), 1848–1854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2008.06.018
Türk, C., & Kalkan, H. (2015). The effect of planetariums on teaching specific astronomy concepts. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9516-6
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
Vygotsky Room, CDTL
1:15pm-1:40pm
Exploring students’ perception of feedback in computing internships
Bimlesh WADHWA1*, Mark GAN2, LI Shiyu3, and Sarah CHEAH4 1School of Computing
2Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning 3, 4NUS Business School
Despite the essential nature and growing popularity of internships in computer science, little research has
been conducted to investigate the role of feedback and their effectiveness in learning. We combined the
findings from a pilot study (Cheah, Gan, Li, & Wadhwa, 2019) with insights from personnel and knowledge
transfer literatures to explore students’ perception of feedback from academic and company advisors. In
the undergraduate degree programme at the NUS School of Computing (SOC), students undergo at least
one internship project in which they typically receive periodic feedback from company advisors. A delayed
or ineffective feedback not only results in project delays and rework, it also affects student learning and
satisfaction.
We believe that task level feedback, though powerful in correcting faulty interpretations (Harackiewicz,
1979), is not sufficient for deeper learning in project-based learning. Feedback needs to contain guidance
on the process i.e. how to proceed with rejecting erroneous hypotheses and improving on searching and
strategising (Earley, 1988). In addition, it should provide information that opens up more opportunities for
learning, such as enhancing self-regulation (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) and refining strategies to work on
tasks. Feedback that attends to self-regulation is powerful as it leads to further engagement into the tasks
(Butler & Winnie, 1995). Furthermore, timeliness and regularity of feedback is important too. Timely
interaction with specific feedback could help students more effectively navigate the experiential learning
journeys in their internships.
In this study, we attempted to measure students’ perception of feedback in computing internship projects and
explore how they use the feedback from company and academic advisors. The key research question we
aimed to address was:
How do computing students perceive and use feedback from advisors during an internship project?
This study adopted the framework by Hattie and Timperley (2007) on the power of feedback to
conceptualise feedback for learning at three levels: task, process and self-regulation. The participants for
this study comprised of 39 SOC undergraduates taking CP3880 “Advanced Technology Attachment Project
(ATAP)”, with a mix of both male and female students between the ages of 22-25. Each student carried out
the project individually and went through ATAP under the guidance of one academic and one industry advisor
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
(see Figure 1 for the design of the study). The ATAP is typically divided into three stages: (a) Scoping the
objectives and requirements (b) Designing and implementing the solution, (c) Presenting the deliverables,
including a report. The industry advisor reviewed student’s work monthly and provided written feedback on
their progress. The academic advisor provided feedback at stages (a) and (c). Student’s interactions with the
industry advisor’s feedback were usually ad hoc in nature. Note-taking and use of feedback were left to
the student, with no formal mechanism of reflection or way for students to respond on how they would use
the feedback provided.
The instrument used for this study is a survey questionnaire with three sections—(i) perception and use of
feedback in achieving learning outcomes; (ii) perception and use of feedback given by the company advisor
for the internship project; and (iii) perception and use of feedback given by the academic advisor for the
internship project.
Findings showed that students perceive feedback as very useful, and they recognised the importance of
feedback from the advisors. A big part of the feedback occurred through the discursive feedback
interactions between the student and company advisor. Students recognised that the feedback enabled them
in task completion, deepened their procedural understanding and prompted self-monitoring processes. The
quality of feedback was found to differ across company and academic advisors. Students showed
reasonable satisfaction levels for company advisors’ feedback at critical milestones in their project. However,
the feedback from academic advisors were found to be less useful, and low in specificity.
From these initial findings, we offer recommendations for advisors to enhance internship effectiveness and
suggestions for researchers interested in studying feedback as a determinant of computing internship
effectiveness. Our recommendations highlight the need for improved feedback interactions at task, process
and self-regulation levels, and effective use of feedback guidance for students to improve their learning
during internship projects.
Figure 1. Internship module flow
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
Keywords
Feedback, computing internship, industry projects, self-regulation
References
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review
of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
Cheah, S., Gan, M., Li, S., & Wadhwa, B. (2019). From individual learning to innovation project team
performance: Role of supervisors’ feedback. Presented at Asialics’ 2019, 26-27 July, South Korea.
Earley, P. C. (1988). Computer-generated performance feedback in the magazine subscription industry.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 50–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(88)90046-5
Harackiewicz, J. M. (1979). The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37(8): 1352–1363.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1352
Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–
112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
Meadows Cluster, CDTL
1:15pm-1:40pm
Creating an inclusive outdoor learning framework in a residential college
LIM Cheng Puay and Norman NEW Chin Guan
Ridge View Residential College
[email protected] and [email protected]
Individual learning and change as a result of direct experiences is one of the principal aims of experiential
learning (Hovelynck, 2001). The main stage for experiential learning is often the outdoor classroom. Outdoor
learning programmes focus on personal and interpersonal development for individuals and groups, from
diverse backgrounds and in a variety of environmental settings (Hans, 2000).
Anchored in experiential learning, the Ridgeview Residential College’s (RVRC) co-academic curriculum uses
the Levels of Service (LoS) Framework (Treffinger & Selby, 2009; Renzulli & Reis, 2010) to design
appropriate learning experiences, from level-wide activity for the general cohort to specific opportunities
for the few. The key tenets of the LoS is that it is a flexible, inclusive, and unifying framework catering to the
needs of different kinds of activities, places, and people.
Using the LoS approach, RVRC created an outdoor learning framework with these two salient features:
1. An accessible and developmental outdoor programme that caters for all RVRC students in diverse
environmental settings.
2. Equal opportunities for interested students to step out of their comfort zone and further pursue their
diverse interests.
The first tier of the framework rests on three compulsory outdoor activities which all students entering RVRC
in their first year participate in. The activities are based on three themes: (1) Environmental stewardship, (2)
Knowing your backyard, (3) Outdoor experiences beyond the academic classroom. These activities are
catered to be inclusive for all students.
For environmental stewardship, all Year 1 students participate in a beach cleanup at Tanah Merah Beach
where they directly observe the impact of marine trash in Singapore. Students also learn about the physical
environment surrounding RVRC through a 10km walk from RVRC to Mount Faber. As part of a discussion on
“Sustainable Urban Buildings”, students attend an outdoor learning session assessing the various green
features in a designated building in NUS.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
The second tier of the framework is flexible in incorporating academic and co-academic activities which
students are free to join based on their level of interest. RVRC offers second year forums with a number of
topics focusing on outdoor learning. Students can sign up for forums such as “Exploring Singapore’s Southern
Islands in a kayak”. RVRC also organised its first Youth Expedition Project (YEP) to Shangri-La, Yunnan, China,
where participants worked on waste management and sanitation projects.
This poster presentation will share students’ perception of what they learned from the Shangri-La YEP project
in relation to the RVRC outdoor learning framework.
A quantitative survey was conducted to assess whether the 16 students who participated in the Shangri-La
YEP project felt that it contributed to their personal growth and development as well as challenged them to
step out of their comfort zones. 100% of the students strongly agreed or agreed that the project helped
them “develop greater self-awareness”. All strongly agreed that the project helped them “develop greater
effectiveness in working with others”. 90% of the students strongly agreed that the project “stretched them
physically, emotionally and intellectually”. These findings suggest that the project has added value to the
students’ personal growth and development. The students were also stretched holistically. These findings were
further supported with reflections from the students.
The LoS framework proved to be a flexible and informative tool to organise and also plan for the outdoor
learning provisions for the students in a residential setting. RVRC would be focusing on including staff
development and exposure to outdoor education with this framework in the future.
Keywords
Curricular design, outdoor learning, inclusivity
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
References
Hans, T. A. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effects of adventure programming on locus of control. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30(1), 33-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003649031834
Hovelynck, J. (2001). Beyond didactics: A reconnaissance of experiential learning. Australian Journal of
Outdoor Education, 6(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03400739
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (2010). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and
interests. Gifted Education International, 26(2-3), 140-156.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F026142941002600303
Treffinger, D. J. & Selby, E. C. (2009). Levels of Service (LoS): A contemporary approach to programming
for talent development. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.).
Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. (2nd Ed.). (pp. 629-654).
Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
Meadows Cluster, CDTL
1:15pm-1:40pm
Making thinking visible
Amy CHOONG Mei Fun
Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science
As educators, we do not often know what misconceptions students might have from attending our lectures,
unless they ask questions. Or we discover, too late, that there were misconceptions after the review of the
assessments or examinations. We also do not know what thoughts students might have until we receive the
students’ end-of-semester feedback, unless we actively interact with them and seek their feedback, provided
they reveal such information truthfully.
To address some of the misconceptions students may have, educators have adopted clickers (Sevian &
Robinson, 2011), the “K-W-L” reading strategy1 (Ogle, 1986), and the Immediate Feedback Assessment
Technique (IF-AT) (Cotner, Baepler, & Kellerman (2008). These three examples are by no means exhaustive.
While these are all good tools, they do not allow free-flow of thoughts nor can students ask questions. I
wanted to know what questions students have and what their opinions or thoughts are regarding each lecture
topic.
In this study, we focus on LMS1307 “Waste and Our Environment”, which was taught for the first time in
Semester 1 of AY 2018/19. The cohort comprised 38 students from all levels from the Faculties of Science,
Computer Science, Chemical Engineering and NUS Business School. I decided to adopt a simplified version
of the book Making Thinking Visible by Ritchhart, Church, and Morrison (2011). I would like students to gain
thinking skills outlined by Ritchhart and his colleagues (2011), which would help students develop their
understanding of the concepts covered in LMS1307. These skills include: (1) observing and describing what’s
there, (2) building explanation and interpretations, (3) making connections, (4) considering different
viewpoints and perspectives, and finally (5) wondering and asking questions. The ones that I am omitting are
(6) capturing the heart and forming conclusions, (7) reasoning with evidence, and (8) uncovering complexities
and what goes on below the surface of things.
An A4 sheet of paper was given to each student to use throughout the semester to record any thoughts,
questions or lecture content that they deem to be important. Some also used this opportunity to ask questions
or give the lecturer feedback. Some students were prolific writers and required two to three more sheets.
This piece of paper was also used to record their lecture and tutorial attendance which counted towards
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
their overall modular grade. They also had to complete post-lecture topical quizzes, which were used to
check their level of understanding or whether they harboured any misconceptions of the module content.
The findings indicate that 92% of the class treated the whole exercise seriously and were very engaged.
They used the A4 written platform and emailed the lecturer occasionally to ask questions (Skill 5), wrote
down their notes for me to check for any misconceptions (Skill 1), wrote down their comments about lectures
and their thoughts and feelings on the videos shown to them (Skill 2), connected different lectures and current
affairs news to a particular lecture topic (Skill 3), and even provided feedback on the teaching assistants’
style of comments on their posters but were willing to accept my explanations and perspectives (Skill 4). Two
of the students did not attend classes because of personal issues while one was a man of few words. By
examining their submissions, they (92% of the class) gained to a greater or lesser degree all five skills. The
quizzes also helped in identifying misconceptions and prepared students for the final examinations.
When compared with their final grades, those who did not give personal opinions or asked few questions
but made neat notes scored A+ and A, while those who asked questions or gave opinions scored A- and B+.
There was a strong correlation between attendance and quiz scores, and the students’ final grades. Students
appreciated that I took their submissions seriously after each lecture (there were a total of 24 lectures). They
appreciated my effort and recognised the diverse waste issues and how serious they were affecting the
environment.
In future semesters, I will fine-tune this exercise of “making thinking visible” and consider giving students more
time to develop Skill (7), which focuses on reasoning with evidence.
Endnote
1. “K-W-L” is a reading strategy that helps learners develop active reading of expository steps through
a 3-step procedure of: K (“Knowing what we know”), W (“What do I want to learn?”), and L (“What
I Learned”) (Ogle, 1986).
Keywords
Undergraduates’ learning, thinking, questioning, misconceptions
Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2019
G a l l e r y C l u s t e r Wa l k
References
Cotner, S., Baepler, P., & Kellerman, A. (2008). Scratch this! The IF-AT as a technique for stimulating group
discussion and exposing misconceptions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(4), 48-53. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42992776.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading
Teacher, 39, 564–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.39.6.11
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement,
understanding and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sevian, H. & Robinson, W. E. (2011). Clickers promote learning in all kinds of classes—small and large,
graduate and undergraduate, lecture and lab. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3), 14-18.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42992853.
Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning (CDTL)National University of Singapore
15 Kent Ridge Road Singapore 119225Tel : (65) 6516-2071 Fax : (65) 6777-0342
Higher Education: Campus Conference 2019:Advancing a culture of teaching: Diversity and inclusivity to optimise learning