This study aims to enhance the learning motivation of engineering graduate students, particularly those specializing in Instrument Science and Engineering. It does so by evaluating the impact of a combined teaching approach that integrates multiple innovative methods. A total of 156 master’s students and 44 doctoral students were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group engaged in small-group discussions, personalized online courses, and flipped classrooms, while the control group followed traditional teaching methods. Over a 20-week intervention period, several aspects were measured, including changes in learning motivation, teacher perceptions, satisfaction of basic psychological needs, and academic emotions. The results clearly indicate that the intervention significantly reduced non-regulatory behaviors and led to improvements in students’ self-regulation, decision-making abilities, and overall academic performance. Furthermore, students in the experimental group demonstrated superior outcomes in various critical areas such as research skills, engineering thinking, communication, and cooperation, all of which were reflected in their test scores when compared to the control group. Additionally, achievement test results in the small-group discussion model showed a negative correlation with class size, implying that the effectiveness of this method may vary depending on student personalities and group dynamics. The study concludes that small-group discussions positively influence engineering thinking, enhance goal clarity, and foster both student initiative and motivation. This teaching approach effectively meets the students’ needs for independent problem-solving and substantially enhances learning motivation, thereby supporting the educational goals in graduate studies related to Instrument Science and Engineering.
| Published in | Higher Education Research (Volume 9, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.her.20240906.15 |
| Page(s) | 176-185 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Small Class Discussion-Based Teaching, Higher Education, Engineering Thinking, Interview Survey, Achievement Test
| [1] | Le, T. Q., & Do, T. T. A. (2019). Active teaching techniques for engineering students to ensure the learning outcomes of training programs by CDIO Approach. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 9(1), 266-273. |
| [2] | Williams, C. (2010). Understanding the essential elements of work‐based learning and its relevance to everyday clinical practice. Journal of nursing management, 18(6), 624-632. |
| [3] | Powell, J. P. (1974). Small group teaching methods in higher education. Educational Research, 16(3), 163-171. |
| [4] | Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R.,... & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The journal of the learning sciences, 19(1), 3-53. |
| [5] | Xie, H., Liu, W., & Bhairma, J. (2018, December). Analysis of synchronous and asynchronous E-learning environments. In 2018 3rd Joint International Information Technology, Mechanical and Electronic Engineering Conference (JIMEC 2018) (pp. 270-274). Atlantis Press. |
| [6] | Hantla, B. F. (2014). Book Review: Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. |
| [7] | Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J.,… & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(4), 495-547. |
| [8] | Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining" gamification". In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15). |
| [9] | Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352-365. |
| [10] | Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. science, 326(5958), 1410-1412. |
| [11] | Callister, W. D., Rethwisch, D. G., Blicblau, A., Bruggeman, K., Cortie, M., Long, J., & Mitchell, R. (2007). Materials science and engineering: an introduction (Vol. 7, pp. 665-715). New York: John wiley & sons. ISBN:0471504882 |
| [12] | Hayashi, P., Abib, G., & Hoppen, N. (2019). Validity in Qualitative Research: A Processual Approach. Qualitative Report, 24(1), 98–112. |
| [13] | Cronbach, L. J. (1943). On estimates of test reliability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 34(8), 485. |
| [14] | Ahern, A., Dominguez, C., McNally, C., O’Sullivan, J. J., & Pedrosa, D. (2019). A literature review of critical thinking in engineering education. Studies in Higher Education, 44(5), 816-828. |
| [15] | Fila, N. D., McKIlligan, S., & Guerin, K. (2018, June). Design thinking in engineering course design. In 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. |
| [16] | Narayanan, S., & Adithan, M. (2015). Analysis of question papers in engineering courses with respect to HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills). American Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE), 6(1), 1-10. |
| [17] | Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). The development of higher psychological processes. |
| [18] | 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. |
| [19] | Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322-331. |
| [20] | Watkins, J., & Portsmore, M. (2022). Designing for framing in online teacher education: Supporting teachers’ attending to student thinking in video discussions of classroom engineering. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(4), 352-365. |
| [21] | Lamancusa, J. S., Jorgensen, J. E., & Zayas‐Castro, J. L. (1997). The learning factory—A new approach to integrating design and manufacturing into the engineering curriculum. Journal of engineering Education, 86(2), 103-112. |
| [22] | Winberg, C., Bramhall, M., Greenfield, D., Johnson, P., Rowlett, P., Lewis, O.,... & Wolff, K. (2020). Developing employability in engineering education: a systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(2), 165-180. |
| [23] | Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). The effects of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 123-151. |
| [24] | Grosseck, G. (2009). To Use or Not to Use Web 2.0 in Higher Education? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478–482. |
| [25] | Loveys, B. R., & Riggs, K. M. (2019). Flipping the laboratory: improving student engagement and learning outcomes in second year science courses. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 64-79. |
| [26] | Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 69(1), 21-51. |
| [27] | Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and individual differences, 51(4), 472-477. |
| [28] | Shernoff, E. S., Mehta, T. G., Atkins, M. S., Torf, R., & Spencer, J. (2011). A qualitative study of the sources and impact of stress among urban teachers. School mental health, 3, 59-69. |
APA Style
Deng, Z., Du, T., Deng, K., Lin, L., Li, S., et al. (2024). Small Class Discussion-based Teaching: Enhancing the Research Ability and Engineering Thinking of Graduate Students in the Field of Instrumentation. Higher Education Research, 9(6), 176-185. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.her.20240906.15
ACS Style
Deng, Z.; Du, T.; Deng, K.; Lin, L.; Li, S., et al. Small Class Discussion-based Teaching: Enhancing the Research Ability and Engineering Thinking of Graduate Students in the Field of Instrumentation. High. Educ. Res. 2024, 9(6), 176-185. doi: 10.11648/j.her.20240906.15
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.her.20240906.15,
author = {Zihan Deng and Tiantian Du and Kanghui Deng and Legeng Lin and Shangyu Li and Zhisheng Wang},
title = {Small Class Discussion-based Teaching: Enhancing the Research Ability and Engineering Thinking of Graduate Students in the Field of Instrumentation
},
journal = {Higher Education Research},
volume = {9},
number = {6},
pages = {176-185},
doi = {10.11648/j.her.20240906.15},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.her.20240906.15},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.her.20240906.15},
abstract = {This study aims to enhance the learning motivation of engineering graduate students, particularly those specializing in Instrument Science and Engineering. It does so by evaluating the impact of a combined teaching approach that integrates multiple innovative methods. A total of 156 master’s students and 44 doctoral students were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group engaged in small-group discussions, personalized online courses, and flipped classrooms, while the control group followed traditional teaching methods. Over a 20-week intervention period, several aspects were measured, including changes in learning motivation, teacher perceptions, satisfaction of basic psychological needs, and academic emotions. The results clearly indicate that the intervention significantly reduced non-regulatory behaviors and led to improvements in students’ self-regulation, decision-making abilities, and overall academic performance. Furthermore, students in the experimental group demonstrated superior outcomes in various critical areas such as research skills, engineering thinking, communication, and cooperation, all of which were reflected in their test scores when compared to the control group. Additionally, achievement test results in the small-group discussion model showed a negative correlation with class size, implying that the effectiveness of this method may vary depending on student personalities and group dynamics. The study concludes that small-group discussions positively influence engineering thinking, enhance goal clarity, and foster both student initiative and motivation. This teaching approach effectively meets the students’ needs for independent problem-solving and substantially enhances learning motivation, thereby supporting the educational goals in graduate studies related to Instrument Science and Engineering.
},
year = {2024}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Small Class Discussion-based Teaching: Enhancing the Research Ability and Engineering Thinking of Graduate Students in the Field of Instrumentation AU - Zihan Deng AU - Tiantian Du AU - Kanghui Deng AU - Legeng Lin AU - Shangyu Li AU - Zhisheng Wang Y1 - 2024/11/14 PY - 2024 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.her.20240906.15 DO - 10.11648/j.her.20240906.15 T2 - Higher Education Research JF - Higher Education Research JO - Higher Education Research SP - 176 EP - 185 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2578-935X UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.her.20240906.15 AB - This study aims to enhance the learning motivation of engineering graduate students, particularly those specializing in Instrument Science and Engineering. It does so by evaluating the impact of a combined teaching approach that integrates multiple innovative methods. A total of 156 master’s students and 44 doctoral students were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group engaged in small-group discussions, personalized online courses, and flipped classrooms, while the control group followed traditional teaching methods. Over a 20-week intervention period, several aspects were measured, including changes in learning motivation, teacher perceptions, satisfaction of basic psychological needs, and academic emotions. The results clearly indicate that the intervention significantly reduced non-regulatory behaviors and led to improvements in students’ self-regulation, decision-making abilities, and overall academic performance. Furthermore, students in the experimental group demonstrated superior outcomes in various critical areas such as research skills, engineering thinking, communication, and cooperation, all of which were reflected in their test scores when compared to the control group. Additionally, achievement test results in the small-group discussion model showed a negative correlation with class size, implying that the effectiveness of this method may vary depending on student personalities and group dynamics. The study concludes that small-group discussions positively influence engineering thinking, enhance goal clarity, and foster both student initiative and motivation. This teaching approach effectively meets the students’ needs for independent problem-solving and substantially enhances learning motivation, thereby supporting the educational goals in graduate studies related to Instrument Science and Engineering. VL - 9 IS - 6 ER -
Center of Ultra-Precision Optoelectronic Instrument Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; Key Lab of Ultra-Precision Intelligent Instrumentation (Harbin Institute of Technology), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin, China
China Special Economic Zone Research Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
Center of Ultra-Precision Optoelectronic Instrument Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; Key Lab of Ultra-Precision Intelligent Instrumentation (Harbin Institute of Technology), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin, China
Center of Ultra-Precision Optoelectronic Instrument Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; Key Lab of Ultra-Precision Intelligent Instrumentation (Harbin Institute of Technology), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin, China
Center of Ultra-Precision Optoelectronic Instrument Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China; Key Lab of Ultra-Precision Intelligent Instrumentation (Harbin Institute of Technology), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin, China
Information