Enhancing Railway Engineering Student Engagement Using Interactive Technology Embedded with Infotainment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Development of Learning Activity and Resources with Integrated Learning Technology
3. Evaluation Plan
4. Learning Design Flow Map
5. Results and Discussion
6. Conclusions
- Blended infotainment and interactive technology can form an adaptive teaching pedagogy to increase student engagement in the railway geometry and alignment design class.
- The student surveys highlight the enjoyment, stimulation, and engagement of students in class, leading to improved learning performance.
- Students also perceive added value of interactive technology integrated with infotainment, renewing their learning participation.
- Despite the positive outcomes, the flexibility and viability of using this interactive technology still largely depends on the nature of the audiences.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
References
- Armour, K. Message to All Staff from Pro Vice Chancellor (Education), E-mail Communication to All Staff on 13 September 2016; The University of Birmingham: Birmingham, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kaewunruen, S. Underpinning systems thinking in railway engineering education. Australas. J. Eng. Educ. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UKPSF (UK Professional Standards Framework). The UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education; The Higher Education Academy, Guild HE, Universities UK: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Guthrie, R.; Carlin, A. Waking the Dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. In Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY, USA, 6–8 August 2004; pp. 2952–2959. [Google Scholar]
- Ribeiro, L.R.C.; Mizukami, M.D.G.N. Problem-based learning: A student evaluation of an implementation in postgraduate engineering education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 30, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirkwood, A. E-learning: You don’t always get what you hope for. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2009, 18, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blasco-Arcas, L.; Buil, I.; Hernández-Ortega, B.; Javier Sese, F. Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldwell, J.E. Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2007, 6, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmidt, B. Teaching engineering dynamics by use of peer instruction supported by an audience response system. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2011, 36, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.H.; Finkelstein, A. Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical development with Clicker Assessment and Feedback technologies and the impact on students’ engagement and learning in higher education. Comput. Educ. 2013, 65, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brady, M.; Seli, H.; Rosenthal, J. “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Comput. Educ. 2013, 65, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossgrove, K.; Curran, K.L. Using Clickers in Nonmajors- and Majors-Level Biology Courses: Student Opinion, Learning, and Long-Term Retention of Course Material. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2008, 7, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kennewell, S.; Tanner, H.; Jones, S.; Beauchamp, G. Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2007, 24, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bojinova, E.; Oigara, J. Teaching and learning with clickers in higher education. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2013, 25, 154–165. [Google Scholar]
- Beatty, I.D.; Gerace, W.J.; Leonard, W.J.; Dufresne, R.J. Designing effective questions for classroom response teaching. Am. J. Phys. 2006, 74, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martyn, M. Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference EDUCAUSE, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 31 October–3 November 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Bruff, D. Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Mazur, E. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- McKnight, K.; O’Malley, K.; Ruzic, R.; Horsley, M.K.; Franey, J.J.; Bassett, K. Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2016, 48, 194–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; Smith, K.A. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom; Interaction Book Company: Edina, MN, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Jenkin, M. Learning through Play: Pedagogy, Challenges and Ideas—Live Chat, The Guardian. 2013. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/15/learning-play-imaginative-inquiry-teaching-schools-live-chat (accessed on 1 January 2019).
- Laxman, K. A study on the adoption of clickers in higher education. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 27, 1291–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Flaherty, J.; Phillips, C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet High. Educ. 2015, 25, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernard, R.M.; Borokhovskil, E.; Schmid, R.F.; Tamim, R.M.; Abrami, P.C. A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2014, 26, 87–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, C. Using a Personal Response System in Economics Teaching. Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 2003, 1, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hannay, M.; Fretwell, C. The higher education workplace: Meeting the needs of multiple generations. Res. High. Educ. J. 2011, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Junco, R.; Heibergert, G.; Loken, E. The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2011, 27, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreri, S.P.; O’Connor, S.K. Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group learning course. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2013, 77, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKinney, K.; Heyl, B. (Eds.) Sociology through Active Learning; SAGE/Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kassens-Noor, E. Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in higher education: The case of sustainable tweets. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machemer, P.L.; Crawford, P. Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2007, 8, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavanagh, M. Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative learning activities in lectures. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2011, 12, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lean, J.; Moizer, J.; Towler, M.; Abbey, C. Simulations and games: Use and barriers in higher education. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2006, 7, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bingimals, K.A. Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environ-ments: A review of the literature. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2009, 5, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, M. Barriers to Reflective Practice: The Changing Nature of Higher Education. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2003, 4, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, S.E. Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. J. Athl. Train. 2003, 38, 263–267. [Google Scholar]
- Yazedjian, A.; Boyle Kolkhorst, B. Implementing Small-Group Activities in Large Lecture Classes. Coll. Teach. 2007, 55, 164–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, T.F.I.; Borja, M.; Welch, B.; Batiuk, M.E. Predicting the probability for faculty adopting an audience response system in higher education. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2016, 15, 395–407. [Google Scholar]
- Gould, S.M. Potential use of classroom response systems (CRS, Clickers) in foods, nutrition, and dietetics higher education. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2016, 48, 669–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, L.; Hallam, M.C.; Duvall, M.M.; Polsky, Z. Considerations for using personal Wi-Fi enabled devices as “clickers” in a large university class. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryson, C. Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2016, 21, 84–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christie, M.; de Graaff, E. The philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings of active learning in engineering education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2017, 42, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. J. Learn. Spaces 2016, 5, 52–60. [Google Scholar]
- Dreher, R.; Simpson, C.; Sørensen, O.J.; Turcan, R.V. (Eds.) When Students Take the Lead: Enhancing Quality and Relevance of Higher Education through Innovation in Student-Centred Problem-Based Active Learning. In Proceedings of the PBLMD International Conference, Chisinau, Moldova, 27–28 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Englund, C.; Olofsson, A.D.; Price, L. Teaching with technology in higher education: Understanding conceptual change and development in practice. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2017, 36, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, N.F.; Saifullizam, P. A survey of technology enabled active learning in teaching and learning practices to enhance the quality of engineering students. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2017, 23, 1104–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, C.; Shao, B. The Net Generation and Digital Natives, Implications for Higher Education; A Literature Review; Higher Education Academy: Milton Keynes, UK, 2011; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
- Hunsu, N.J.; Adesope, O.; Bayly, D.J. A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Comput. Educ. 2016, 94, 102–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapiro, A.M.; Sims-Knight, J.; O’Rielly, G.V.; Capaldo, P.; Pedlow, T.; Gordon, L.; Monteiro, K. Clickers can promote fact retention but impede conceptual understanding: The effect of the interaction between clicker use and pedagogy on learning. Comput. Educ. 2017, 111, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassanin, H.; Essa, K.; El-sayed, M.A.; Attallah, M.M. Enhancement of student learning and feedback of large group engineering lectures using audience response systems. J. Mater. Educ. 2016, 38, 175–190. [Google Scholar]
- Selvi, R.T.; Chandramohan, G. Peer Assessment of Oral Presentation: An Investigative Study of Using Clickers in First-Year Civil Engineering Class of a Reputed Engineering Institution. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E), Mumbai, India, 2–4 December 2016; pp. 132–135. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, P.; O’Rourke, K. Guide to Curriculum Design: Enquiry-Based Learning; Higher Education Academy: Manchester, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Pearson Education: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Eyler, J. The power of experiential education. Lib. Educ. 2009, 95, 24–31. [Google Scholar]
- Kaewunruen, S. Final Report for Effective Academic Practice in Higher Education, PGCert in Academic Practice; The University of Birmingham: Birmingham, UK, 2016; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
- Conner, H.; Dench, S.; Bates, P. An Assessment of Skill Needs in Engineering; Department for Education and Employment Publications: Nottingham, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Zaharim, A.; Md Yusoff, Y.; Omar, M.Z.; Mohamed, A.; Muhamad, N. Engineering Employability Skills Required by Employers in Asia. In Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Engineering Education, Rodos Island, Greece, 22–24 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hoekstra, A.; Mollborn, S. How clicker use facilitates existing pedagogical practices in higher education: Data from interdisciplinary research on student response systems. Learn. Media Technol. 2012, 37, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camacho-Miñano, M.D.; del Campo, C. Useful interactive teaching tool for learning: Clickers in higher education. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2016, 24, 706–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLinden, M.; Hinton, D. EBL for teachers of the visually impaired, Talking about Learning & Teaching Case Study 008; University of Birmingham: Birmingham, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Vuopala, E.; Hyvonen, P.; Jarvela, S. Interaction forms in successful collaborative learning in virtual learning environments. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaewunruen, S.; Tang, T. Idealisations of Dynamic Modelling for Railway Ballast in Flood Conditions. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setsobhonkul, S.; Kaewunruen, S.; Sussman, J.M. Lifecycle Assessments of Railway Bridge Transitions Exposed to Extreme Climate Events. Front. Built Environ. 2017, 3, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaewunruen, S.; Sussman, J.M.; Matsumoto, A. Grand Challenges in Transportation and Transit Systems. Front. Built Environ. 2016, 2, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
U.K. [56] | Singapore [57] | Japan [57] |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
Demography | 2016 Cohort * (Traditional Class Discussion) | 2017 Cohort * (Interactive Technology) |
---|---|---|
Male | 60% | 78% |
Female | 40% | 22% |
Native English speaker | 38% | 45% |
Have professional experience | 56% | 58% |
Enjoy using technology | 38% | 28% |
Total number of survey response | 35 | 46 |
Total number of enrolment | 42 | 51 |
Student Comments |
---|
● Investigate how people could be encouraged to interact verbally. |
● Great effort, well done. |
● Remove names from clicker questions. Doing this actually create 2 questions and is confusing. Need better definitions of alignment and geometry—very confusing. |
● I would have liked to work through the work example with the class, i.e., for the lecturer to show us afterward. |
● Ensure video lecture is available online. |
● I liked the interactive tool. I am a designer and it was good to hear it from an academic view. |
● Needs video to give real view of the materials. |
● I prefer if concepts were detailed better in lectures. |
● Use of technology was good. Kept me engaged. |
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kaewunruen, S. Enhancing Railway Engineering Student Engagement Using Interactive Technology Embedded with Infotainment. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020136
Kaewunruen S. Enhancing Railway Engineering Student Engagement Using Interactive Technology Embedded with Infotainment. Education Sciences. 2019; 9(2):136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020136
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaewunruen, Sakdirat. 2019. "Enhancing Railway Engineering Student Engagement Using Interactive Technology Embedded with Infotainment" Education Sciences 9, no. 2: 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020136
APA StyleKaewunruen, S. (2019). Enhancing Railway Engineering Student Engagement Using Interactive Technology Embedded with Infotainment. Education Sciences, 9(2), 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020136