LEARNING APPROACH IN ENGINEERING DYNAMICS COURSE OF MECHATRONIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMME IN THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL LEARNING SCENARIOS

Hafizan Hashim, Noor Azean Anis Binti Abd Aziz, Hanita Hashim

Abstract


How crucial are engineering mechanics courses for Mechatronic Engineering Technology Programme (METP)? Engineering dynamics is one of the mechanical fundamental courses taught in METP, UiTM Shah Alam, Malaysia. Teaching engineering mechanics courses can be challenging for several reasons: abstract concepts, math-intensive, and diverse backgrounds. Even though deep learning is mostly desirable in higher education, the learning scenarios can sometimes inspire different learning styles. The purpose of this study is to examine the learning approach adopted by mechatronic engineering technology students during engineering dynamics course in two learning situations: theoretical and experimental learning. Samples were recruited from the first cohort of METP students in UiTM. Online questionnaires that consist of revised R-SPQ-2F were distributed after completion of course assessment. Students were clustered into three types of learning approaches in the two scenarios: deep learning, mixed learning, and surface learning. Results showed that students from different backgrounds adopted different learning approaches in different scenarios. Factors such as previous institution, grade, and theoretical exposures play major roles in classifying students’ learning approaches. The study findings can help improve students’ learning approaches by specifically manipulating changes in the learning environment.


Keywords


Deep learning; engineering technology students; experimental learning; R-SPQ-2F; theoretical learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria‐referenced self‐assessment. Assessment & evaluation in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–181.

Bernama. (2021). Malaysia needs to increase percentage of students in STEM. NewStraitsTimes. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2021/10/734985/malaysia-needs-increase-percentage-students-stem-dr-adham

Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(Pt 1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433

Fatin Aliah Phang, Mohd Salleh Abu, Muhammad Bilal Ali, & Salmiza Salleh. (2012). Faktor penyumbang kepada kemerosotan penyertaan pelajar dalam aliran sains: satu analisis sorotan tesis. Medc2012, 2010, 1–17.

Hariharasudan, A., & Kot, S. (2018). A scoping review on Digital English and Education 4.0 for Industry 4.0. Social Sciences, 7(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7110227

Ling Chia, P., Mistima Maat, S., Pendidikan, F., & Kebangsaan Malaysia, U. (2018). An Exploratory Study of Teachers’ Attitudes towards Integration of STEM in Malaysia 45. International Journal of Electrical Engineering and Applied Sciences, 1(1), 2600–7495.

Lwande, C., Muchemi, L., & Oboko, R. (2021). Identifying learning styles and cognitive traits in a learning management system. Heliyon, 7(8), e07701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07701

Miranda, J., Navarrete, C., Noguez, J., Molina-Espinosa, J. M., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Navarro-Tuch, S. A., Bustamante-Bello, M. R., Rosas-Fernández, J. B., & Molina, A. (2021). The core components of education 4.0 in higher education: Three case studies in engineering education. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 93(February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107278

Mohaffyza, M., Yunos, J. M., Heong, Y. M., Junita, J., Rizal, F., & Ibrahim, B. (2021). Comparison of Learning Style for Engineering and Non-Engineering Students. Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 6(4), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj060422

Mystakidis, S. (2021). Deep Meaningful Learning. Encyclopedia, 1(3), 988–997. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia1030075

Nieminen, J. H., Asikainen, H., & Rämö, J. (2021). Promoting deep approach to learning and self-efficacy by changing the purpose of self-assessment: a comparison of summative and formative models. Studies in Higher Education, 46(7), 1296–1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1688282

Nur Farhana Ramli, & Othman Talib. (2017). Can Education Institution Implement STEM? From Malaysian Teachers’ View. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(3), 2222–6990. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i3/2772

Ong, E. T. (2022). Science Education in Malaysia. In R. Huang, B. Xin, A. Tlili, F. Yang, X. Zhang, L. Zhu, & M. Jemni (Eds.), Science Education in Countries Along the Belt {&} Road: Future Insights and New Requirements (pp. 277–295). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6955-2_17

Takase, M., & Yoshida, I. (2021). The relationships between the types of learning approaches used by undergraduate nursing students and their academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(5), 836–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.06.005

Tannoubi, A., Guelmami, N., Bonsaksen, T., Chalghaf, N., Azaiez, F., & Bragazzi, N. L. (2022). Development and Preliminary Validation of the Physical Education-Study Process Questionnaire : Insights for Physical Education University Students. Frontiers in Public Health, 10(March), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.856167

Vargas-Hernández, J. G., & Vargas-González, O. C. (2022). Strategies for meaningful learning in higher education. Journal of Research in Instructional, 2(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.30862/jri.v2i1.41

Zhao, C., Hou, H., & Gu, Q. (2022). The Types of Learning Approaches Used by Engineering Students in Three Scenarios: An Adaptation of the R-SPQ-2F to China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(July), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.944588


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Index