Engaging ICT Engineering Undergraduates in a Management Subject through First Day of Class Activities: An Empirical Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. State of the Art
2.1. Enhancing Engagement and Motivation the First Day of Class
2.2. Studies about ‘What Likes’ and ‘What Dislikes’ to Students the First Day of Class
2.3. Activities Carried out the First Day of Class
- The most basic activity could be to introduce the academic staff and present the syllabus. Sometimes the instructors start giving contents after the presentation or choose to end the first session of class. Along this line, several activities are described in [65] as examples of ‘what not to do’ during the first session of class session.
- Creating positive and/or negative ‘experiences’ on purpose during the first session of class. For instance, Wilson & Wilson [13] showed two different videos explaining the syllabus to different groups of students. In one of the videos, the instructor gave the presentation in a friendly way, whereas in the other one the instructor presented the syllabus while avoiding emotional tone and followed the syllabus presentation by another video that generated a homework assignment to be performed. Another experience, related to a psychology subject, is described in LoSchiavo, Buckingham & Yurak [66], where an instructor showed up at the classroom and after asking the students to fill out some information, he told them to stand up and face the back of the room; later, after some minutes and once the real instructor appeared, they discussed the topic of obedience.
- Introducing topics to create students’ interest in the subject. Within this category, icebreakers could be included. Different activities were performed in different fields to create interest. Different academic experiences can be mentioned as an example, as follows: regarding economics, Helmy [67] played a lottery to assign a country to students in order to discuss their development problems; as for statistics, Bartsch [54] asked their students to generate anonymous questions to be answered during class on the first day, and Bennet [68] also analyzed probability by means of matching students’ dates of birth; in the context of physics, Gaffney & Whitaker [69] asked students to answer Fermi’s questions, in other words, to quantify questions to which it was quite difficult to obtain the exact solution in terms of their quantification, an experiential learning activity to introduce topics about ‘operations management’ [70]; using a Readers’ Theatre technique [71]; or just whipping [72], a teaching activity to promote students’ participation.
- Reciprocal interview activity. As described in different papers [12,73], a reciprocal interview activity consists of following these steps: (1) create groups of students; (2) offer a potential list of questions, as examples, to ask the instructor during the interview phase; (3) each group of students discusses the set of predefined questions that will then be asked to the instructor during the interview activity once the speaker of the group has been selected; (4) carry out the reciprocal interview activity in class, or the instructor asks the different groups what is the same, and finally; (5) students ask the instructor.
2.4. NLC at La Salle URL or Leveraging the First Class Session
- Interiority: The educational model transcends the academic field, considering personal growth as an inseparable part of education.
- Mind (body and movement): This principle tries to convey the idea that learning takes place beyond the classroom. The NLC considers the use of space and its organization as the third educational agent, with students and instructors being the other agents.
- Thought Construction: The NLC should generate cognitive skills and abilities, structures, procedures, and strategies that develop different thinking processes and their use.
- Self-Regulated Behavior: The NLC creates spaces and experiences in which autonomous learning habits are encouraged, where each student learns to self-regulate his/her own pace, intensity, effort, commitment, and time required to reach the learning goals, which can be achieved through different paths.
- Social Dimension of Learning, which is structured on three fundamental levels: (1) the educational spaces, as a pedagogical element which favors social learning; (2) the organizational proposal, which specifies the pedagogical framework of coexistence; (3) the community, as a learning structure.
- Seminar (i.e., focusing on ‘knowing’): seminars are organized as teaching areas to allow the student’s acquisition of the concepts. In other words, seminars are knowledge areas in which different learning methodologies (such as, lectures, flipped classrooms, peer-to-peer learning, etc.) can be implemented to achieve the learning outcomes.
- Workshop (i.e., focusing on ‘knowing how to be’): workshops are pedagogical environments in which the students use their own strengths to construct their own learning process. In the global context of the NLC Methodological Framework, workshops represent the integration of knowledge, allowing students to fully connect with multifaceted elements of their life. Workshops are orientated to build and develop the students’ competences which in turn help them develop their own personality.
- Project (i.e., focusing on ‘knowing what to do’): this interdisciplinary learning area enables students to learn competences through complex tasks. Those tasks are characterized by their transversal integration of knowledge, being developed in an interdisciplinary way by means of several different sources (scientific, social, historical, artistic, etc.). Projects are usually focused on a specific source, which is then complemented by the other ones, thus creating a learning environment in which students can truly grow, develop, and construct knowledge.
- Welcoming: this is an area of experience that can help students develop healthy study habits by means of different tools. It ranges from internal elements of the human being (such as reflexional, interiority, consciences, motivation) to organizational needs (planning, to-do lists, and objectives, etc.). Not all the welcome activities are mandatorily programmed at the beginning of the session. In fact, some activities may be scheduled just at the beginning of a specific activity or project.
- Closure: this implies the completion of the task. At this point, students assess the work done, make insights for the future, celebrate their achievements, and finish their session. This activity enables students to truly appreciate what they have learnt: conclusions about what they can make, or simply how they can take advantage of these conclusions, as well as being aware of the mistakes they have made and how to learn from them. In the same way as the welcoming sessions, closure sessions are not necessarily programmed at the end of the day, nor do they always last the same length of time.
3. Methods
3.1. An Empirical Study: First Day of Class, ‘What Likes’ and ‘What Dislikes’
3.2. Instructors’ and Students’ Interactions: A Reciprocal Interview Activity
4. Findings and Results
4.1. First Day of Class, ‘Likes’ and ‘Dislikes’
4.2. Reciprocal Interview Activity
5. Discussion
5.1. What Students ‘Like’ and What They ‘Dislike’
5.2. Analizing the Students’ Evaluation of the Reciprocal Interview Activity
5.3. Practical Implications of the Findings
5.4. Limitations, Restrictions and Future Research Directions
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Todorov, A.; Pakrashi, M.; Oosterhof, N.N. Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Soc. Cogn. 2009, 27, 813–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willis, J.; Todorov, A. First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zebrowitz, L.A.; Montepare, J.M. Faces and first impressions. In APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes and Social Cognition; Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., Borgida, E., Bargh, J.A., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 252–276. [Google Scholar]
- Olivola, C.Y.; Todorov, A. Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zebrowitz, L.A. First Impressions from Faces. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 26, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ambady, N.; Rosenthal, R. Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 64, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambady, N.; Rosenthal, R. Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations from Thin Slices of Nonverbal Behavior and Physical Attractiveness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1993, 64, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howlett, N.; Pine, K.; Orakçıoğlu, I.; Fletcher, B. The influence of clothing on first impressions. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2013, 17, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greenlees, I.; Bradley, A.; Holder, T.; Thelwell, R. The impact of opponents’ non-verbal behaviour on the first impressions and outcome expectations of table-tennis players. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2005, 6, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinecke, K.; Yeh, T.; Miratrix, L.; Mardiko, R.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; Gajos, K.Z. Predicting Users’ First Impressions of Website Aesthetics with a Quantification of Perceived Visual Complexity and Colorfulness. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13), Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013; pp. 2049–2058. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, M.; Saleem, M.; Gonzalez, C. Developing trust: First impressions and experience. J. Econ. Psychol. 2014, 43, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermann, A.D.; Foster, D.A. Fostering approachability and classroom participation during the first day of class: Evidence for a reciprocal interview activity. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wilson, J.H.; Wilson, S.B. The First Day of Class Affects Student Motivation: An Experimental Study. Teach. Psychol. 2007, 34, 226–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGinley, J.J.; Jones, B.D. A Brief Instructional Intervention to Increase Students’ Motivation on the First Day of Class. Teach. Psychol. 2014, 41, 158–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchert, S.; Laws, E.L.; Apperson, J.M.; Bregman, N.J. First impressions and professor reputation: Influence on student evaluations of instruction. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2008, 11, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laws, E.L.; Apperson, J.M.; Buchen, S.; Bregman, N.J. Student evaluations of instruction: When are enduring first impressions formed? N. Am. J. Psychol. 2010, 12, 81–91. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, R.; Maytham, B.; Case, J.; Fraser, D. Engineering graduates’ perceptions of how well they were prepared for work in industry. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 30, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, M.; Sparrow, P.; Clegg, C.; Studies, K.B.-D. Design engineering competencies: Future requirements and predicted changes in the forthcoming decade. Des. Stud. 2005, 26, 123–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, C.K.Y.; Zhao, Y.; Luk, L.Y.Y. A Validated and Reliable Instrument Investigating Engineering Students’ Perceptions of Competency in Generic Skills. J. Eng. Educ. 2017, 106, 299–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passow, H.J. Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work? J. Eng. Educ. 2012, 101, 95–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passow, H.J.; Passow, C.H. What Competencies Should Undergraduate Engineering Programs Emphasize? A Systematic Review. J. Eng. Educ. 2017, 106, 475–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ABET. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2020–2021|ABET. Available online: https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2020-2021/ (accessed on 20 April 2021).
- International Engineering Alliance. Celebrating International Engineering Education Standards and Recognition. Available online: https://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/History/25YearsWashingtonAccord-A5booklet-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2021).
- Male, S.A.; Bush, M.B.; Chapman, E.S. Perceptions of Competency Deficiencies in Engineering Graduates. Australas. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 16, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pons, D. Relative importance of professional practice and engineering management competencies. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2016, 41, 530–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Petchamé, J.; Iriondo, I.; Riu, D.; Masi, T.; Almazano, A.; Fonseca, D. Self & Peer to Peer Assessment: Evaluating Oral Presentations in a Final Year Engineering Subjecte. In Proceedings of the TEEM’20: 8th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 21–23 October 2020; pp. 784–790. [Google Scholar]
- Deluse, S. First Impressions: Using a Flexible First Day Activity to Enhance Student Learning and Classroom Management. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 2018, 30, 308–321. [Google Scholar]
- Foster, D.A.; Hermann, A.D. Linking the First Week of Class to End-of-Term Satisfaction: Using a Reciprocal Interview Activity to Create an Active and Comfortable Classroom. Coll. Teach. 2011, 59, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilson, L.B. Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Rotenberg, R.L. The Art & Craft of College Teaching: A Guide for New Professors & Graduate Students; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- McKeachie, W.; Svinicki, M. McKeachie’s Teaching Tips; Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Erickson, B.L.; Peters, C.B.; Strommer, D.W. Teaching First-Year College Students; John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, SA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wolcowitz, J. The First Day of Class. In The Art and Craft of Teaching; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Keller, J.M. Motivation, Learning, and Technology: Applying the ARCS-V Motivation Model. Particip. Educ. Res. (PER) 2016, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pintrich, P.R. A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts. J. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 95, 667–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Petchamé, J.; Iriondo, I.; Riu, D.; Masi, T.; Almazano, A.; Fonseca, D. Project Based Learning or the Rethinking of an Engineering Subject: Measuring Motivation. In Proceedings of the TEEM’20: 8th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 21–23 October 2020; pp. 267–272. [Google Scholar]
- Kovach, M. A Review of Classical Motivation Theories: Understanding the Value of Locus of Control in Higher Education. Peer-Rev. Artic. J. Interdiscip. Stud. Educ. 2018, 7, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, D.A.; Artino, A.R. Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Med. Educ. 2016, 50, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christenson, S.; Reschly, A.; Wylie, C. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bond, M.; Buntins, K.; Bedenlier, S.; Zawacki-Richter, O.; Kerres, M. Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, H.; Zdravkovic, M.; João Costa, M.; Celenza, A.; Ghias, K. Twelve tips for enhancing student engagement. Med. Teach. 2018, 41, 632–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Busato, V.; Prins, F.; Elshout, J.; Individual, C.H.-P. Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2000, 29, 1057–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnenbrink, E.A.; Pintrich, P.R. Motivation as an enabler for academic success. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2002, 31, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skinner, E.; Furrer, C.; Marchand, G.; Kindermann, T. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 765–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wigfield, A.; Wentzel, K.R. Introduction to motivation at school: Interventions that work. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 42, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valle, A.; Regueiro, B.; Rodríguez, S.; Piñeiro, I.; Freire, C.; Ferradás, M.; Suárez, N. Perfiles motivacionales como combinación de expectativas de autoeficacia y metas académicas en estudiantes universitarios. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 8, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sánchez-Prieto, J.C.; Olmos-Migueláñez, S.; Garcia-Penalvo, F.J. Motivation and innovation: Mobile technology acceptance among student teachers. Rev. Iberoam. De Educ. A Distancia 2017, 20, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Finn, J.D.; Zimmer, K.S. Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 97–131. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.S. The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? J. Educ. Res. 2014, 107, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fredricks, J.A.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Paris, A.H. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 59–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reyes, C.R.; Brackett, M.A.; Rivers, S.E. Classroom Emotional Climate, Student Engagement, and Academic Achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 104, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hermann, A.D.; Foster, D.A.; Hardin, E.E. Does the First Week of Class Matter? A Quasi-Experimental Investigation of Student Satisfaction. Teach. Psychol. 2010, 37, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perlman, B.; McCann, L.I. Student perspectives on the first day of class. Teach. Psychol. 1999, 277–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartsch, R.A. Improving attitudes toward statistics in the first class. Teach. Psychol. 2006, 33, 197–198. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, D.M.; Mcguire, F.A.; Cory, L. The first day: It happens only once. Teach. High. Educ. 2011, 16, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreizinger, J. Critical Connections for the First Day of Class. Teach. Profr. 2006, 20, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, D. Engaging students on the first day of class: Student-generated questions promote positive course expectations. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 2019, 5, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Case, K.A. The class interview: Student engagement in courses covering sensitive topics. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 2011, 10, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patrick, H.; Anderman, L.H.; Ryan, A.M.; Edelin, K.C.; Midgley, C. Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. Elem. Sch. J. 2001, 102, 35–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patrick, H.; Turner, J.C.; Meyer, D.K.; Midgley, C. How Teachers Establish Psychological Environments During the First Days of School: Associations with Avoidance in Mathematics. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2003, 105, 1521–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henslee, A.M.; Burgess, D.R.; Buskist, W. Student preferences for first day of class activities. Teach. Psychol. 2006, 33, 189–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassett, J. Students’ First Day of Class Preferences: Factor Structure and Individual Differences. N. Am. J. Psychol. 2011, 13, 373–381. [Google Scholar]
- Eskine, K.E.; Hammer, E. Students’ Perspectives on the First Day of Class: A Replication. Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2017, 11, Article 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iannarelli, B.A.; Bardsley, M.E.; Foote, C.J. Here’s Your Syllabus, See You Next Week: A Review of the First Day Practices of Outstanding Professors. J. Eff. Teach. 2010, 10, 29–41. [Google Scholar]
- Dorn, D.S. The first day of class: Problems and strategies. Teach. Sociol. 1987, 15, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loschiavo, F.M.; Buckingham, J.T.; Yurak, T.J. First-Day Demonstration for Social Psychology Courses. Teach. Psychol. 2002, 29, 216–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helmy, H.E. A lottery on the first day of classes! An innovative structured steps assignment on a partially randomly selected topic. Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 2016, 21, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, K.L. How to start teaching a tough course: Dry organization versus excitement on the first day of class. Coll. Teach. 2004, 52, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaffney, J.D.H.; Whitaker, J.T. Making the Most of Your First Day of Class. Phys. Teach. 2015, 53, 137–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snider, B.; Southin, N. Operations Course Icebreaker: Campus Club Cupcakes Exercise. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 2016, 14, 262–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lom, B. Classroom activities: Simple strategies to incorporate student-centered activities within undergraduate science lectures. J. Undergrad. Neurosci. Educ. 2012, 11, 64–71. [Google Scholar]
- Tanner, K.D. Feature Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning Structure Matters: Twenty-One Teaching Strategies to Promote Student Engagement and Cultivate Classroom Equity. Life Sci. Educ. 2013, 12, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Case, K.; Bartsch, R.; Mcenery, L.; Hall, S.; Hermann, A.; Foster, D. Establishing a Comfortable Classroom from Day One: Student Perceptions of the Reciprocal Interview. Coll. Teach. 2008, 56, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sein-Echaluce, M.L.; Fidalgo-Blanco, Á.; Alves, G. Technology behaviors in education innovation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 72, 596–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fonseca, D.; Conde, M.Á.; García-Peñalvo, F.J. Improving the information society skills: Is knowledge accessible for all? Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2018, 17, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Salle Distrito ARLEP. NCA, Otra Manera de Hacer Escuela; La Salle ARLEP: Madrid, Spain, 2018; ISBN 8472219342. [Google Scholar]
- La Salle Distrito ARLEP. NCA, Nuevo Contexto de Aprendizaje; La Salle ARLEP: Madrid, Spain, 2020; ISBN 8472219359. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, J.L.; Dickson-Deane, C.; Galyen, K. E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet High. Educ. 2011, 14, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Land, S.; Jonassen, D. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Herrero-Martín, J.; Canaleta, X.; Fonseca, D.; Rodríguez-Merino, C.; Kinnear, L.; Amo, D. Designing a multi-scale and multi-dimensional assessment for a new national educational context. In Proceedings of the TEEM’20: 8th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 21–23 October 2020; pp. 791–796. [Google Scholar]
- AQU: VSMA Framework. Available online: https://www.aqu.cat/en/universities/titulacions/vsma-framework (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Petchamé, J.; Iriondo, I.; Villegas, E.; Riu, D.; Fonseca, D. Comparing Face-to-Face, Emergency Remote Teaching and Smart Classroom: A Qualitative Exploratory Research Based on Students’ Experience during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ZOOM. Ways of Learning Are Changing: La Salle Campus Barcelona Gives Students Flexibility to Learn from Anywhere Using Zoom. Available online: https://blog.zoom.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Case-Study_La-Salle-University.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2021).
- Bengtsson, M. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nurs. Open 2016, 2, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cypress, B.S. Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimens. Crit. Care Nurs. 2017, 36, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noreña, A.L.; Alcaraz-Moreno, N.; Rojas, J.G.; Rebolledo-Malpica, D. Aplicabilidad de los criterios de rigor y éticos en la investigación cualitativa. Aquichán 2012, 12, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morse, J.M. Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry. Qual. Health Res. 2015, 25, 1212–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morse, J.M.; Barrett, M.; Mayan, M.; Olson, K.; Spiers, J. Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2002, 1, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2015, 4, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reja, U.; Manfreda, K.L.; Hlebec, V.; Vehovar, V. Open-ended vs. Close-ended Questions in Web Questionnaires. Dev. Appl. Stat. 2003, 19, 159–177. [Google Scholar]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Likert, R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1932. [Google Scholar]
- Peñarrubia-Lozano, C.; Segura-Berges, M.; Lizalde-Gil, M.; Bustamante, J.C. A Qualitative Analysis of Implementing E-Learning during the COVID-19 Lockdown. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christopoulos, A.; Conrad, M.; Shukla, M. Increasing student engagement through virtual interactions: How? Virtual Real. 2018, 22, 353–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Items 1 | ‘Likes’ | ‘Dislikes’ | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | |
General overview, syllabus, content, & expectations | 107 | 78.10 | 16 | 11.68 |
Describing assessment & grading | 75 | 54.74 | 12 | 8.76 |
Utility & objectives of the subject | 44 | 32.12 | ||
Instructor: introducing background & experience | 42 | 30.66 | 7 | 5.11 |
Icebreaker: doing activities | 38 | 27.74 | 5 | 3.65 |
Getting to know classmates | 31 | 22.63 | ||
Positive attitude of instructor towards students | 25 | 18.25 | ||
Doing a ‘nonconventional’ class session | 22 | 16.06 | ||
Motivating students | 22 | 16.06 | ||
Beginning subject content | 15 | 10.95 | 95 | 69.34 |
Instructor’s advice to pass the subject | 15 | 10.95 | ||
Class takes up full session (2 h) | 8 | 5.84 | 6 | 4.38 |
Explaining instrumental elements (software, etc.) | 4 | 2.92 | ||
Reviewing content (that should be known) | 3 | 2.19 | ||
Doing a test to check initial knowledge | 1 | 0.73 | 24 | 17.52 |
Poor use of class time | 20 | 14.60 | ||
Homework assignments | 9 | 6.57 | ||
Instructor: poor teaching | 8 | 5.84 | ||
Instructor: uncaring, intimidating | 7 | 5.11 | ||
Instructor: not being empathetic | 6 | 4.38 | ||
Beginning subject content without prior introduction | 4 | 2.92 | ||
Instructor: bad attitude | 2 | 1.46 | ||
Instructor: not being enthusiastic about the subject | 2 | 1.46 |
Items 1 | ‘Likes’ | ‘Dislikes’ | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | |
General overview, syllabus, content, & expectations | 13 | 86.67 | ||
Describing assessment & grading | 10 | 66.67 | ||
Instructor: introducing background & experience | 8 | 53.33 | 1 | 6.67 |
Getting to know classmates | 6 | 40.00 | ||
Icebreaker: doing activities | 5 | 33.33 | ||
Motivating students | 4 | 26.67 | ||
Utility & objectives of the subject | 3 | 20.00 | ||
Instructor’s advice to pass the subject | 2 | 13.33 | ||
Good instructor’s attitude towards students | 1 | 6.67 | ||
Doing a ‘nonconventional’ class session | 1 | 6.67 | ||
Beginning subject content | 1 | 6.67 | 9 | 60.00 |
Reviewing previously acquired content | 1 | 6.67 | ||
Doing a test to check initial knowledge | 4 | 26.67 | ||
Poor use of class time | 1 | 6.67 | ||
Instructor: uncaring, intimidating | 1 | 6.67 | ||
Instructor: bad attitude | 1 | 6.67 |
Items 1 | ‘Likes’ | ‘Dislikes’ | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | |
General overview, syllabus, content, & expectations | 94 | 77.06 | 16 | 13.11 |
Describing assessment & grading | 65 | 53.28 | 12 | 9.84 |
Utility & objectives of the subject | 41 | 33.61 | ||
Instructor: introducing background & experience | 34 | 27.87 | 6 | 4.92 |
Icebreaker: doing activities | 33 | 27.05 | 5 | 4.10 |
Getting to know classmates | 25 | 20.49 | ||
Positive attitude of instructor towards students | 24 | 19.67 | ||
Doing a ‘nonconventional’ class session | 21 | 17.21 | ||
Motivating students | 18 | 14.75 | ||
Beginning subject content | 14 | 11.48 | 86 | 70.49 |
Instructor’s advice to pass the subject | 13 | 10.66 | ||
Class takes up full session (2 h) | 8 | 6.56 | 6 | 4.92 |
Explaining instrumental elements (software, etc.) | 4 | 3.28 | ||
Reviewing content (that should be known) | 2 | 1.64 | ||
Doing a test to check initial knowledge | 1 | 0.82 | 20 | 16.39 |
Poor use of class time | 19 | 15.57 | ||
Homework assignments | 9 | 7.38 | ||
Instructor: poor teaching | 8 | 6.56 | ||
Instructor: uncaring, intimidating | 6 | 4.92 | ||
Instructor: not being empathetic | 6 | 4.92 | ||
Beginning subject content without introduction | 4 | 3.28 | ||
Instructor: not being enthusiastic about the subject | 2 | 1.64 | ||
Instructor: bad attitude | 1 | 0.82 |
Reciprocal Interview Questionnaire | M | Mdn | SD |
---|---|---|---|
Comfort with instructor interaction | |||
C1. ‘Talking to the instructor about assignments’ | 3.93 | 4 | 0.70 |
C2. ‘Asking the instructor questions during class sessions’ | 3.93 | 4 | 0.70 |
C3. ‘Talking to the instructor during office hours’ | 3.71 | 4 | 0.91 |
C4. ‘Emailing the instructor with questions’ | 3.87 | 4 | 1.19 |
Student comfort with class participation | |||
S1. ‘Participating in group activities during class’ | 4.20 | 5 | 1.01 |
S2. ‘Sharing ideas and opinions during class’ | 4.00 | 4 | 0.76 |
S3. ‘Working group activities outside class hours’ | 3.67 | 4 | 1.23 |
Evaluation of the activity | |||
E1. ‘Would you recommend other instructors do this activity at the beginning of the term?’ | 3.80 | 4 | 0.86 |
E2. ‘Did this activity seem to be a waste of time?’ | 1.47 | 1 | 0.64 |
… the activity helped me: | |||
H1. ‘To understand what was expected in class’ | 4.13 | 4 | 0.74 |
H2. ‘To work hard to do well in the class’ | 4.00 | 4 | 0.88 |
H3. ‘To become more comfortable participating in class’ | 4.13 | 4 | 0.74 |
H4. ‘To share concerns with the instructor’ | 4.00 | 4 | 1.07 |
AICTep 1 | ICTMep 2 | ICTeMep 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
General overview, syllabus, content, & expectations | 78.10% | 86.67% | 77.06% |
Describing assessment & grading | 54.74% | 66.67% | 53.28% |
Utility & objectives of the subject | 32.12% | 20.00% | 33.61% |
Instructor: introducing background & experience | 30.66% | 53.33% | 27.87% |
Icebreaker: doing activities | 27.74% | 33.33% | 27.05% |
Getting to know classmates | 22.63% | 40.00% | 20.49% |
Good instructor’s attitude towards students | 18.25% | 6.67% | 19.67% |
Doing a ‘nonconventional’ class session | 16.06% | 6.67% | 17.21% |
Motivating students | 16.06% | 26.67% | 14.75% |
AICTep 1 | ICTMep 2 | ICTeMep 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
Beginning subject content | 69.34% | 60.00% | 70.49% |
Doing a test to check initial knowledge | 17.52% | 26.67% | 16.39% |
Poor use of class time | 14.60% | 6.67% | 15.57% |
General overview, syllabus, content, & expectations | 11.68% | - | 13.11% |
Describing assessment & grading | 8.76% | - | 9.84% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Petchamé, J.; Iriondo, I.; Canaleta, X.; Riu, D.; Necchi, S. Engaging ICT Engineering Undergraduates in a Management Subject through First Day of Class Activities: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137440
Petchamé J, Iriondo I, Canaleta X, Riu D, Necchi S. Engaging ICT Engineering Undergraduates in a Management Subject through First Day of Class Activities: An Empirical Study. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137440
Chicago/Turabian StylePetchamé, Josep, Ignasi Iriondo, Xavi Canaleta, David Riu, and Silvia Necchi. 2021. "Engaging ICT Engineering Undergraduates in a Management Subject through First Day of Class Activities: An Empirical Study" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137440
APA StylePetchamé, J., Iriondo, I., Canaleta, X., Riu, D., & Necchi, S. (2021). Engaging ICT Engineering Undergraduates in a Management Subject through First Day of Class Activities: An Empirical Study. Sustainability, 13(13), 7440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137440