Open Access
MATEC Web of Conferences
Volume 150, 2018
Malaysia Technical Universities Conference on Engineering and Technology (MUCET 2017)
Article Number 05005
Number of page(s) 8
Section Education, Social Science & Technology Management
Published online 23 February 2018
  1. Pang Chau Leong. Key reforms in revitalizing technical and vocational education and training (TVET) in Malaysia. Regional Conference HRD through TVET as a Development Strategy in Asia Colombo, Sri Lanka (2011). [Google Scholar]
  2. Husain, M. Y. & Rasul, M. S. & Mustapha, R. & Malik, S. A. & Abd Rauf, R. A. (2013). Tahap kemahiran employability pelajar kejuruteraan dari perspektif majikan. Jurnal Teknologi. 62(1). 31-39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Yusof, N., Jamaluddin, Z., & Lazim, N. M. (2013). Persepsi Pelajar Prasiswazah Terhadap Kebolehpasaran Graduan dan Persaingan dalam Pasaran Pekerjaan (The Perception of Undergraduates’ Student Towards the Marketability of Graduate and Competition in the Job Market). International Journal of Environment, Society and Space, 1(1). 43-61. Jurnal Personalia Pelajar, 16, 77-92. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ibrahim, D. H. M., & Mahyuddin, M. Z. (2017). Youth Unemployment in Malaysia: Developments and Policy Considerations. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zulkhairi,W., Ismail, R., & Amirmudin. Critic and different of philosophy in technical and vocational education (TVE). Journal of Edupres, 2(1), 287-300(2011). [Google Scholar]
  6. Manitoba Education. Technical vocational education overview. The Government of Manitoba, represented by the Minister of Education. ISBN: 978-0-7711-5391-4 (2013). [Google Scholar]
  7. Hassan, N. F., Puteh, S., & Buhari, R. Student understanding through the application of technology enabled Active Learning in practical training. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 318-325 (2015). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Belcher, J. Technology enabled active learning, Retrieved on May 5, 2007 (2005). [Google Scholar]
  9. Lalley, James P., Miller & Robert H., The Learning Pyramid: Does It Point Teachers in the Right Direction?. Education Journal. ISSN-0013-1172, 128 1, 64-79 (2007). [Google Scholar]
  10. Baer, J. Lectures may be more effective than you think: The learning pyramid unmasked. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 20(2), 7-21(2010). [Google Scholar]
  11. Dam, N.V. 25 Best practices in learning & talent development. Second Edition USA: Lulu Publishers. 136 (2008). [Google Scholar]
  12. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamilton Smith TEAL Classrooms, (2017). Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) Classroom. [Google Scholar]
  14. Guthrie, H., Harris, R., Simons, M., & Karmel, T. Teaching for technical and vocational education and training (TVET). International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching, 21, 851-865 (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hassan, N. F., & Puteh, S. A Survey of Technology Enabled Active Learning in Teaching and Learning Practices to Enhance the Quality of Engineering Students. Advanced Science Letters, 23(2), 1104-1108 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sanusi, A. M., & Puteh, S. An approach of excellence talent in engineering education programmed of enhancing the quality of students. Advanced Science Letters, 23(2), 1109-1112 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee, Y., Boatman, E., Jowett, S., & Guenther, B. REAL: The technology-enabled, engaged, and active learning classroom. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 5(1) (2014). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Shieh, R.S., Chang, W., & Tang, J. The impact of implementing technology enabled active learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19 3. 401–415 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dori, Y.J., & Belcher.W.J. How does Technology Enabled Active Learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts?. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14 2, 243-279(2005). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cinganotto, L., Panzavolta, S., Garista, P., Guasti, L., & Dourmashkin, P. TEAL as an innovative teaching model. Insights from “educational avant-garde” movement in Italy. Je-LKS Teaching Model. 12, 115–126 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  21. Van Hof, J. C. The effects of active learning technology on instructors ‘practices and students ‘engagement and grades: A Mixed Methods Study, (2016). [Google Scholar]
  22. Chiu, P. H. P. A Technology Enriched Active Learning Space for a New Gateway Education Programme in Hong Kong: A Platform for Nurturing Student Innovations. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(1), 52–60 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  23. Ministry of education. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education). ISBN 978-967-0334-99-8, 1-240 (2015). [Google Scholar]
  24. OECD. Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris, (2016). [Google Scholar]
  25. Yee, R. Perceptions of online learning in an Australian university: an international students’ (Asian region) perspective–quality of learning. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3(2) (2013). [Google Scholar]
  26. Colorado, J. T., & Eberle, J. Student demographics and success in online learning environments. Emporia State Research Studies, 46(1), 4-10 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  27. Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T. Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education learning, 6(2), 533–541 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  28. McBrien, J. L., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. Virtual spaces: employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–17 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  29. Wise, B. The online learning imperative: a solution to three looming crises in education. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 76(3), 52-58 2010. [Google Scholar]
  30. Butler Kaler, C. A model of successful adaptation to online learning for college-bound Native American high school students. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 6(2), 60-76 (2012). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education, 94 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  32. Du, J., Liu, Y., & Brown, R. L. The key elements of online learning communities. In Web-Based Education: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications, 119–132 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland. I.M., & Garrison, D. R. Teaching in Blended Learning Environments: Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press, (2013). [Google Scholar]
  34. Norm, F. Report: Defining Blended Learning. Learning spaces papers, (2012). [Google Scholar]
  35. Bath, D. & Bourke, J. Getting Started with Blended Learning. Griith University. Griith Institute for Higher Education, ISBN: 978-1-921760-24-2, (2010). [Google Scholar]
  36. Yen, J. C., & Lee, C. Y. Exploring problem solving patterns and their impact on learning achievement in a blended learning environment. Computers and Education, 56(1), 138–145(2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Edginton, A., & Holbrook, J. A blended learning approach to teaching basic pharmacokinetics and the significance of face-to-face interaction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(5), 88 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Holley, D., & Oliver, M. Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk. Computers & Education, 54(3), 693-700 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Azizan, F. Blended Learning in Higher Education Institution in Malaysia. In Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT, 454-466 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu, J.H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T.-L. A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Fernandez Luna, J. M., Huete, J. F., Perez Vazquez, R., & Rodriguez Cano, J. C. CIRLab: A groupware framework for collaborative information retrieval research. Information Processing and Management, 46(6), 749–761 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nam, N. H. Utilizing the active and collaborative learning model in the introductory physics course. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(3), 108–124 (2014). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Verginadis, Y., Papageorgiou, N., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. A review of patterns in collaborative work. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Supporting group work, 283 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349-377 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kim, H.-N., Ji, A.-T., Ha, I., & Jo, G.-S. Collaborative filtering based on collaborative tagging for enhancing the quality of recommendation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), 73–83 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. Exploring students' knowledge construction strategies in computer-supported collaborative learning discussions using sequential analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 216-228 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  47. Filigree. Instructional Technology and Collaborative Learning Best Practices: Global Report and Recommendations. Sponsor SMART Technologies (2012). [Google Scholar]
  48. Nguyen, N. H. Utilizing the Active and Collaborative Learning Model in the Introductory Physics Course. SSRN 2481765 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  49. Laal, M. Collaborative Learning; Elements. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 814–818 (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ahmad, C. N. C., Osman, K., & Halim, L. Physical and psychosocial aspects of science laboratory learning environment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 87-91(2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. Applying Kolb ’ s experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 283–294 (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Alam, F., Hadgraft, R. G., & Subic, A. Technology enhanced laboratory experiments in learning and teaching. Using Technology Tools to Innovate Assessment, Reporting, and Teaching Prectices in Engineering Education, Hershey, United States, 289-302 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  53. Razali, Z. B., & Daud, M. H. Approach of Assessing ’Hands-on’in Laboratory Exercises in Engineering Technology Courses. In Malaysia University Conference Engineering Technology (2014). [Google Scholar]
  54. Yao, J., Limberis, L., Warren, S., & Asee. Enhancing Laboratory Experiences with Portable Electronics Experiment Kits, Asee Annual Conference (2012). [Google Scholar]
  55. Korchnoy, E., & Verner, I. M. Characteristics of learning computer-controlled mechanisms by teachers and students in a common laboratory environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 217–237 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Schuurbiers, D. What happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 769–788 (2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  57. Domagk, S., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1024–1033(2010). [Google Scholar]
  58. Leow, F. T., & Neo, M. Interactive multimedia learning: Innovating classroom education in a Malaysian university. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 99–110 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  59. Zulkifli, A. N., Noor, N. M., Bakar, J. A. A., Mat, R. C., & Ahmad, M. A conceptual model of interactive persuasive learning system for elderly to encourage computer-based learning process. In Proceedings-International Conference on Informatics and Creative Multimedia, 7–12 (2013). [Google Scholar]
  60. Violante, M. G., & Vezzetti, E. Virtual interactive E-learning application: An evaluation of the student satisfaction. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(1), 72-91(2015). [Google Scholar]
  61. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sabry, K., & Barker, J. Dynamic Interactive Learning Systems. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 185–197 (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.