Improving Students’ Motivation, Engagement and Learning Environment in a Transnational Civil Engineering Program

Abstract

Transnational higher education programs in engineering face persistent challenges in sustaining student motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes. Cultural norms, linguistic barriers, and traditional pedagogies often reinforce teacher-centred instruction, limiting active participation. This mixed-methods action research investigates how problem-based learning (PBL) supported by interactive handouts affects students’ motivation, engagement, and perceived learning outcomes in civil engineering programs, delivered in a Sino–UK university context. Drawing upon socio-cultural constructivism, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the multidimensional framework of student engagement, the study repositions motivation and engagement as central drivers of learning. Quantitative data from student surveys (N = 49) and qualitative responses from open-ended questions were analysed to identify patterns of perceived improvement and underlying mechanisms. Findings reveal that the scaffolded PBL and interactive tasks enhanced students’ intrinsic motivation, collaborative engagement, and self-reported understanding of key concepts. Students described the activities as “more interesting,” “interactive,” and “helpful for exam preparation.” In total, 92% agreed that the handouts improved their understanding of core concepts, while 78% of students reported being more motivated to participate in class, and 92% of students expressed that the handouts enhanced the learning environment. While self-reported perceptions limit causal claims, the findings contribute to a growing body of evidence advocating for learner-centred, motivationally informed pedagogies in transnational engineering education.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Context

Engineering education is traditionally perceived as content-heavy and technically rigorous, often prioritising knowledge transmission over learner engagement and motivation. Civil engineering education presents distinctive challenges due to the discipline’s inherently multidisciplinary nature and the rapidly advancing technological innovations that are reshaping industry practices (Hayes, 1986; Froehle et al., 2022). In transnational higher education (TNE) contexts, where programs are delivered across national, cultural and linguistic borders to facilitate instruction for students located in foreign countries (Tran et al., 2023), the challenge intensifies. Students enrolled in Sino–UK civil engineering programs, for example, often experience cognitive overload and limited opportunities for active participation due to language barriers, cultural learning preferences, and unfamiliar pedagogical expectations (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006; Chan & Rao, 2010). Consequently, many students in China remain passive recipients of knowledge, attending lectures but rarely engaging deeply with problem-solving or collaborative inquiry (Littlewood, 1999).

Research in STEM education has consistently shown that surface learning approaches are associated with lower motivation and poorer learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Prince, 2004). In contrast, active learning pedagogies, such as problem-based learning (PBL) and interactive activities, have demonstrated potential to foster intrinsic motivation, engagement, and meaningful learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). These approaches situate students as active participants who construct understanding through interaction, reflection, and feedback.

The context for this study is a Sino–UK civil and architectural engineering program that aims to enhance learning experiences while upholding international accreditation standards. Previous course evaluations indicated declining engagement levels and minimal classroom participation. The authors, acting as practitioner-researchers, introduced an intervention involving scaffolded, interactive handouts designed to transform passive lectures into active, collaborative problem-solving sessions. These handouts structured learning into short, interactive cycles: students discussed contextual problems, earned points for correct solutions, and reflected on their reasoning processes. The intervention’s purpose was to improve student motivation and engagement, with the ultimate goal of enhancing learning outcomes.

1.2. Problem Statement and Research Gap

Despite growing recognition of the benefits of active learning, many transnational STEM classrooms continue to be dominated by didactic instruction (Zhang & Kenny, 2021). The mismatch between pedagogical intent (active learning) and implementation (lecture-based delivery) often stems from structural constraints: large class sizes, diverse proficiency levels, and a cultural inclination toward teacher authority (J. Li, 2012). As a result, students frequently express low motivation and a limited sense of agency in learning, leading to disengagement and underachievement.

While numerous studies examine problem-based learning (PBL) and interactive activities separately, few explore their combined impact on motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes in transnational engineering contexts. Furthermore, much of the existing research tends to focus on cognitive gains rather than affective dimensions of learning. Yet, motivation and engagement are essential precursors to sustained learning and performance (Fredricks et al., 2004; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Without addressing these dimensions, even well-designed curricula may fail to achieve transformative educational outcomes.

This study fills this gap by integrating theoretical and empirical insights from constructivism, SDT, and engagement research. It investigates how PBL strategies can meet students’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, thereby enhancing motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes. In doing so, it responds to calls for research that bridges pedagogical theory and practice in multicultural engineering education.

1.3. Purpose and Significance of the Study

The purpose of this mixed-methods action research is to examine the effects of scaffolded, interactive handouts on students’ motivation, engagement, learning outcomes, and the learning environment in a transnational civil engineering program. By employing both quantitative and qualitative data, the study provides a comprehensive picture of how students perceive and experience active learning interventions.

The significance of the research lies in its contribution to both theory and practice. Theoretically, it integrates constructivist, motivational, and engagement perspectives into a coherent model explaining how active learning interventions influence student outcomes. Practically, it offers actionable insights for educators seeking to redesign civil engineering curricula in cross-cultural contexts. The study highlights that meaningful learning emerges when motivation and engagement are intentionally fostered through effective pedagogical design.

1.4. Structure of the Paper

The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 elaborates the theoretical framework underpinning motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes within a constructivist paradigm. Section 3 describes the methodology, including context, participants, intervention, data collection, and analysis. Section 4 presents the results, combining quantitative trends with qualitative themes. Section 5 discusses the findings in light of the theoretical framework and prior research, followed by Section 6, which concludes with implications for theory, practice, and future studies.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Socio-Cultural Constructivism

Constructivist learning theory asserts that knowledge is actively constructed by learners through social interaction and reflection (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1996). From this perspective, understanding is not transmitted from teacher to student but co-created within a community of inquiry. Constructivism has also emerged as a pre-eminent practice within the mathematics and science fields, as this approach supports active learning, where new knowledge is constructed upon existing cognitive frameworks and is informed by individual ideas, practices, and experiential learning. The core principle of constructivism posits that the acquisition of knowledge by students is dependent upon their pre-existing understanding. Hence, the effort to tackle individual tasks holds significance for knowledge acquisition, as learners actively seek the meaning of their educational experiences and engage with peers and educators during the instructional process (Krahenbuhl, 2016). Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) serves as a theoretical basis for assessing students’ learning capabilities. If a student is able to grasp a concept, procedure, or skill with the assistance of an instructor, it follows that the student should subsequently be able to execute that concept or skill independently after receiving such pedagogical support (Vygotsky, 1978). In collaborative environments, students benefit from peer dialogue and guided discovery, processes that enhance cognitive and social development.

Within transnational classrooms, constructivism is particularly relevant because students bring diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds to the learning environment. When properly scaffolded, these differences become assets for the co-construction of knowledge. However, without intentional design, cultural norms may inhibit participation, with students deferring to authority or remaining silent (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006). Therefore, constructivist pedagogies in TNE contexts must explicitly promote autonomy and interaction while respecting cultural values.

Problem-based learning (PBL) is prominent educational methodology which is closely linked with social-cultural constructivism as it structures the learning environment around social interaction and the use of cultural tools to collectively construct knowledge. In PBL, learners assume a predominant role in the instructional process by addressing a problem formulated by the educator, while the educator’s responsibility is to devise a question or task related to the learning objectives and facilitate the learners’ journey towards a resolution. Engaging in the resolution of a specific problem enables students to develop individual study habits, enhance their capacity for autonomous learning, advance their high-level cognitive abilities, and refine their problem-solving competencies (Fournier, 2002; Ce et al., 2021). PBL methodologies serve to assist students in the development of competencies such as problem definition, information acquisition and evaluation, solution identification, advanced communication and collaboration skills, teamwork capabilities, as well as the ability to tackle challenges within complex real-world settings (McIntyre, 2003). Overall, this pedagogical approach enhances students’ intrinsic motivation to address designated problems and participate in meaningful interactions with peers while seeking solutions to assigned tasks (Song & Grabowski, 2006).

It has been asserted that PBL resonates with a traditional Chinese proverb: “Tell me and I will forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I will learn,” as attributed to Xunzi, a notable Confucian philosopher from China. Engineering students frequently encounter motivational challenges during their coursework, largely due to the inclusion of complex concepts from Applied Mathematics and Physics within core engineering modules (Lau et al., 2022). To address these challenges, PBL is presumed to enhance active learning and student engagement in the learning process (Tang et al., 2022). The significance of PBL for civil and architectural engineering students highlights several advantages, including the enhancement of problem-solving skills, independent learning, teamwork, collaborative communication, and critical thinking skills (Chau, 2005; Azam et al., 2024). In contrast to conventional educational approaches, PBL ensures that students attain a deeper understanding of concepts through the application of practical engineering problems rather than merely recalling learning materials, descriptions, and formulas (Rodrigues Da Silva et al., 2012). Quinn and Albano (2008) have pointed out the positive effects of this approach in structural engineering education. According to their experience, this approach has met their goal of engaging students in solving problems, developing an understanding of blast loads, progressive collapse, and strategies for mathematical modelling and structural design. From the student’s perspective, the freedom to investigate an engineering problem, gather information to solve it, and use computer technology in the process represents a novel and highly interesting experience. The study concluded that PBL added value to the learning and teaching process. Furthermore, PBL has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for motivating students in several civil engineering courses, and some examples are provided in

Table 1. Example of the application of PBL in civil engineering education.

Field of Application	Authors
Structural analysis course	(Quinn & Albano, 2008; McCrum, 2017; Azam et al., 2024)
Capstone Design	(McIntyre, 2003)
Construction management	(Williams & Pender, 2002; Forcael et al., 2015)
Safety engineering	(Vidic, 2016)
Transportation engineering	(Ahern, 2010; Rodrigues Da Silva et al., 2012; M. Li & Faghri, 2016)
Sustainable construction	(Steinemann, 2003; El-adaway et al., 2015; Ferrer et al., 2022)
Water engineering	(Schmidt, 2007)
Construction management	(Forcael et al., 2015; Du & Naji, 2021)

. The first column presents the field of application of PBL in teaching courses, and the second column refers to the source of literature.

Within our study, PBL principles were operationalised through structured, scaffolded handouts that prompted peer discussion, joint problem-solving, and instructor facilitation. These activities positioned learners as active participants, enabling cognitive growth through interaction and guided discovery, which are core tenets of socio-cultural constructivism.

2.2. Motivation and Self-Determination Theory

Motivation is conceptualised here through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which distinguishes between intrinsic motivation (engaging for inherent satisfaction) and extrinsic motivation (engaging for external rewards). SDT posits that intrinsic motivation flourishes when three psychological needs are met: autonomy (a sense of volition and choice), competence (feeling effective and capable), and relatedness (feeling connected to others).

In the context of engineering education, activities that promote autonomy, such as selecting problems or engaging in collaborative inquiry, help students take ownership of their learning. Feedback mechanisms and scaffolded challenges enhance competence by providing achievable but meaningful goals. Group-based activities, in turn, satisfy relatedness needs, particularly valuable in culturally diverse cohorts where social cohesion supports learning persistence.

2.3. Engagement Frameworks

Student engagement is conceptualised as a multidimensional construct encompassing behavioural, emotional, and cognitive components (Fredricks et al., 2004).

• Behavioural engagement refers to participation, effort, and persistence.
• Emotional engagement reflects interest, enjoyment, and a sense of belonging.
• Cognitive engagement denotes investment in learning strategies and self-regulation.

Later frameworks (e.g., Kahu, 2013; Bond & Bedenlier, 2019) expand this view by situating engagement within institutional and socio-cultural contexts, recognising that engagement is both individual and relational. For instance, Kahu (2013) emphasises that engagement arises from the interplay between student characteristics, institutional culture, and teaching practices.

In this study, engagement is viewed as the behavioural manifestation of motivation, a visible indicator that students’ psychological needs are being met. When learners are motivated, they are more likely to participate actively, persist through challenges, and emotionally connect with the subject. Therefore, interventions that enhance motivation (via SDT) are expected to simultaneously elevate engagement levels.

2.4. Learning Outcomes and Constructive Alignment

While motivation and engagement are critical, the ultimate measure of educational success is the achievement of learning outcomes, observable evidence that students have developed knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Biggs’ (1996) model of constructive alignment argues that effective teaching aligns intended learning outcomes (ILOs), teaching activities, and assessment tasks. When alignment is achieved, learning activities become purposeful, and assessments reinforce desired competencies.

In this study, the scaffolded, interactive handouts were designed to align closely with the course’s ILOs: applying engineering principles, analysing real-world problems, and collaborating effectively. Through structured questioning and feedback, students moved progressively from comprehension to application and evaluation, mirroring Bloom’s (1956) cognitive taxonomy. Hence, the intervention not only supported engagement but also promoted deeper learning outcomes by aligning pedagogy, motivation, and cognition.

2.5. Integrative Theoretical Model

The theoretical framework for this study integrates constructivism, SDT, and engagement theory within the logic of constructive alignment. Figure 1 illustrates this conceptual model.

The model proposes that constructivist learning environments (e.g., PBL, interactive) enhance motivation by satisfying the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Elevated motivation leads to higher engagement across behavioural, emotional, and cognitive dimensions. Sustained engagement, when aligned with intended learning outcomes, leads to enhanced understanding, improved skills, and increased retention. Thus, motivation acts as a precursor, engagement as a mediator, and learning outcomes as the consequence of effective pedagogical design.

2.6. Research Questions

Drawing upon this theoretical framework, the study seeks to address the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: Did the intervention with handouts achieve the aim to help students learn during the class, understand the concept, and prepare for the exam?
• RQ2: Did the intervention with the handouts motivate students to participate in the class from their perspective?
• RQ3: How did intervention with the handouts impact the overall learning environment?
• RQ4: Did students find the tutorial videos useful for better understanding the learning content?

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study adopted a mixed-methods action research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Action research is particularly appropriate for transnational education contexts because it enables practitioners to address local pedagogical challenges through iterative cycles of reflection, planning, implementation, and observation. The mixed-methods design combined quantitative survey data with qualitative written feedback to provide both breadth and depth of understanding regarding students’ motivation, engagement, and perceived learning outcomes.

An action research methodology grounded in a cyclical model, as shown in Figure 2. The model comprises four iterative stages designed to systematically investigate and improve teaching practices in a real-world classroom setting:

• Reflect: This is the initial step in the cyclical model. In the first iteration, the reflection process is applied to identify the issues that arise in the current classes. Reflecting on classes, a noticeable lack of motivation in the learning process and participation is evident. When students were asked to review the class, it was observed that they employed a surface-level approach to learning from the class. The surface-level learning process is characterised as a learning process in which the student directs his attention towards the teaching content with the intention of remembering it and just reproducing it (Marton & Säljö, 1976).
• Plan: Developing strategies and interventions aimed at addressing the identified issues and enhancing the overall learning experience. In the planning process, the idea of handouts is considered.
• Act: Implementing the planned strategies within the classroom, integrating them into the teaching and learning process.
• Observe: Monitoring the implementation of interventions by gathering evidence from classroom interactions, student behaviour, and feedback.
• Reflect: In other iterations except the first iteration, the task is to critically evaluate the teaching experience, the impact of the intervention, and student responses. This includes both personal reflection by the educator and analysis of student feedback.

This cyclical process enables the continuous improvement of pedagogical practice and responsiveness to student needs. It also ensures that the research remains firmly embedded in the classroom context, aligning with the constructivist foundation of the study. The study was interpretivist in orientation, seeking to understand students’ lived experiences rather than to test hypotheses. Quantitative data described trends in student perceptions, while qualitative data provided insight into the mechanisms behind those perceptions. Triangulation between the two strengthened the credibility of findings (Fetters et al., 2013). In keeping with the action research tradition, the teacher/researcher engaged in systematic reflection throughout the study using Brookfield’s (1995) Four Lenses of Critical Reflection, the lens of self (autobiographical experience), students’ perspectives, colleagues’ feedback, and relevant theoretical literature. This framework supported continuous improvement of teaching practice and provided an additional layer of validation for the findings. For instance, student feedback collected through surveys and open comments corresponded to Brookfield’s “students’ eyes” lens, while collegial discussions during departmental teaching meetings reflected the “colleagues’ eyes” lens. These reflections were triangulated with theoretical insights from SDT and engagement literature (“theoretical lens”), ensuring that practitioner interpretations were critically examined rather than taken at face value. The reflective notes guided minor adjustments during each iteration of the intervention, such as the addition of short explanatory videos in response to student feedback. In addition, to better address the unique contextual challenges of TNE and PBL, Brookfield’s original four-lens model is modified to include two additional lenses: industry and culture (Figure 3).

The action research phases guided by the modified six-lens model in this study are explained in the next section:

3.1.1. Stage 1—Reflect

The first step in the initial iteration of the cyclic process is to reflect on classes and identify current issues. Reflecting on the first two classes, it is observed that there is a lack of motivation and participation from the students. Also, the teacher reflects on her teaching style. Upon reflecting on the teaching style, it is evident that the classes’ structure leaned more towards a teacher-centred approach. Hence, there were two issues to resolve: (1) increase the students’ motivation for learning and participating during the class; and (2) to mitigate the teacher-oriented approach towards a student-oriented teaching approach. Additionally, these issues were identified through three peer observations conducted at the beginning of the semester.

3.1.2. Stage 2—Plan

To address the identified challenges, the planning phase incorporated insights from the industry and culture lenses. Three peer observations were conducted, one by a civil engineering academic and two by education specialists, using a structured rubric. Recommendations included:

• Embedding student activities into lectures,
• Improving classroom technology (e.g., microphone use),
• Enhancing the learning environment, and
• Incorporating short instructional videos to visualise construction practices.

From the industry lens, a stronger focus on bridging the gap between academic learning and professional expectations was emphasised. The insights from the industry are based on the requirements of the construction industry. Civil engineering graduates require not only technical knowledge but also site-based skills, health and safety frameworks, and familiarity with construction processes and materials (Simons et al., 2023). These include earthworks, scaffolding, equipment usage, and environmental sustainability. To align with multinational workforce demands, the cultural lens highlighted the importance of developing soft skills, cross-cultural communication, and awareness of international construction standards. The cultural lens is obtained through collecting previous experience in teaching in countries with different cultural backgrounds. Based on these inputs, the instructional plan aimed to create a more student-centred, interactive, and professionally relevant learning experience, particularly through the integration of problem-based learning (PBL) using interactive handouts.

3.1.3. Stage 3—Act

The intervention involved designing interactive handouts that incorporated problem-solving tasks aligned with each class’s learning outcomes. Each handout was carefully designed to align with specific learning outcomes, incorporating problem-solving tasks that encouraged the application of theoretical knowledge to practical scenarios. This choice reflects a commitment to constructivist pedagogy, emphasising active learning, collaboration, and student engagement. Each handout contained four to six context-specific questions designed to promote active engagement. These handouts were distributed during class sessions and strategically integrated into the instructional flow. This design enabled structured pauses for knowledge application, reflection, and group discussion. These activities aimed to stimulate deeper cognitive processing and social learning. The educator assumed the role of a facilitator, offering real-time feedback and guidance during task completion. The example of one handout is provided in Appendix A. The topic of this class was Project planning and scheduling. In this particular class, creating a Gantt chart and a Network chart is assigned as a problem that students need to solve. This is an example of PBL implementation in the classroom. Each lecture was segmented into short teaching blocks, combined with opportunities for students to pause and complete a question from the handout. These pause procedures (Prince, 2004) encouraged students to apply new knowledge immediately, engage in peer discussion, and reflect on practical implications. The handouts served both as a formative learning tool and a means to shift the instructional style toward a problem-solving and student-centred approach. For instance, in the CEN201 Construction Methods module, one handout required students to identify different types of masonry construction and describe their characteristics. This task fostered independent observation, critical comparison, and peer discussion. A subsequent question asked students to identify structural elements in masonry construction, directly addressing the session’s learning outcomes. (A sample handout is available in Appendix A).

3.1.4. Stage 4—Observe

Following implementation, the study moved into the observation phase. Data were collected through three primary lenses: self-reflection, student feedback, and peer observation. Self-reflection is the lecturer’s own reflection on the teaching process in class. It is collected from the teacher. Students’ feedback is collected through a questionnaire survey. Peer observation is collected from the teacher peers who have observed the class and given comments and recommendations for improvements using a rubric. The goal was to evaluate whether the handouts contributed to increased student motivation, participation, and improved classroom dynamics. Informal student observations suggested greater engagement during problem-solving tasks, and classroom energy levels noticeably improved. Peer observers also noted a more dynamic and participatory environment.

3.1.5. Stage 5—Reflect

After completing the initial cycle, we return to the first step in the model. In the initial cycle, the first step in the model was reflection on teaching with the aim of addressing current issues in the class. Since it is not the initial cycle, the role of this phase now is to involve critical reflection on both the effectiveness of the intervention and the broader teaching approach. Guided by the self-reflection lens, the educator evaluated the extent to which student responses had shifted from surface-level memorisation to deeper engagement. The process followed key action research principles: recognising an area for improvement, implementing change, observing the effects, and evaluating results to inform future practice.

3.2. Context and Participants

The intervention took place at XJTLU, a Sino–UK transnational university offering accredited programs in civil and architectural engineering. English was the medium of instruction, though most students were non-native speakers. Three modules were selected for participation:

• CEN002: Introduction to Civil and Architectural Engineering Design and Practice (Year 1, Civil and Architectural Engineering);
• CEN201: Construction Methods (Year 3, Civil and Architectural Engineering);
• CEN208: Capstone Design 1 (Year 3, Civil Engineering); and
• CEN222: Building Services Engineering (Year 3, Architectural Engineering).

A total of 49 students participated voluntarily. Ages ranged from 18 to 23 years, with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 5:1. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained.

3.3. The Intervention: Scaffolded Interactive Handouts

The core pedagogical intervention involved a shift from lecture-dominant delivery to a problem-based, interactive approach, utilising handouts during class. Each handout contained:

• Sequential problem-solving questions mapped to lesson outcomes.
• Mini-scenarios simulating authentic engineering contexts.
• Spaces for individual reasoning followed by group discussion.

The design followed principles of scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976) and gradual release of responsibility. Questions progressed from basic recall to applied problem solving and reflection, thereby supporting competence and cognitive engagement.

3.4. Mixed Methods Design

The study employed a sequential combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. Data collection comprised a structured student questionnaire administered after the implementation of the handout-based teaching intervention, as well as qualitative feedback through open-ended responses.

The questionnaire was designed to collect students’ feedback on the intervention with handouts. It included questions about their participation in class, motivation, perceived relevance of the handouts, the learning environment, and assistance in preparing for the exam. The motivation items, based on self-determination theory (SDT), were designed to assess students’ motivation in relation to their psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In the current literature, it is found that the learning environment is widely used but with different meanings (Abualrub et al., 2013). The most common use of the term’ learning environment’ is related to the sum of teaching and learning activities during a class (Abualrub et al., 2013), which is also used in this research. Previous studies have shown that the learning environment has an impact on students’ motivation (Hanrahan, 1998). Since the learning environment impacts students’ motivation, this study examines the influence of handouts on the learning environment, whether it is improved or not. If the learning environment is better, it will increase motivation. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. The instrument consisted of seven questions, six of which were closed-ended and one open-ended. Closed-ended questions were evaluated using a five-point Likert-type scale (Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree), which is widely recognised for its ease of interpretation and reliability in gauging subjective experiences (Havlíková, 2017). Responses to the closed-ended items were statistically analysed and presented using descriptive statistics and visualisations (e.g., bar charts, pie graphs) to identify trends in students’ feedback. The survey instrument is available in Appendix B.

To gain deeper insights, the final questionnaire item invited students to provide open-ended responses regarding how the classroom learning environment could be improved to better support participation. This qualitative data was analysed using content analysis.

Table 2. Alignment of RQs and survey items from the questionnaire.

RQs	Survey Items
RQ1. Did the intervention with handouts achieve the aim of helping students learn during class, understand the concept, and prepare for the exam?	The handouts help me learn during class and enhance my understanding of and engagement with the course concepts.
	The problem-solving strategy on the handouts contributes to gaining knowledge.
	The handouts help in preparing exams.
RQ2. Did the intervention with the handouts motivate students to participate in the class from their perspective?	I feel motivated to participate in the class and discussions with the use of handouts.
RQ3. How did intervention with the handouts impact the overall learning environment?	The use of handouts improved the learning environment.
RQ4. Did students find tutorial videos useful for better understanding the learning content?	I found the instructional videos useful for enhancing my understanding of the key concepts in civil engineering.

provides a comprehensive overview of how RQs and the items in the survey are aligned.

3.5. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analysed by descriptive statistics. Frequency distributions and mean scores were computed to capture general tendencies rather than infer causal relationships. Reliability analysis yielded Cronbach’s α = 0.876, confirming strong internal consistency (Bujang et al., 2018). Qualitative data were analysed through thematic content analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), facilitated by NVivo software v. 14 (Adu, 2019). Responses were coded into nodes, each representing a unique suggestion or theme. Similar or identical responses were grouped under the same node, allowing for analysis of frequency patterns. Two independent coders reviewed responses, developed initial codes, and clustered them into themes aligned with SDT and engagement constructs. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion, achieving intercoder agreement of 0.89. Trustworthiness was further supported by peer debriefing and reflexive journaling.

3.6. Ethical Consideration

Ethical approval was granted by the institution’s ethics committee. Participation was voluntary and anonymous; no assessment marks were affected. The researcher maintained a reflexive stance to minimise power dynamics, acknowledging dual roles as teacher and investigator.

4. Results

The obtained results are classified into two categories: quantitative and qualitative findings based on the applied method. A total of 49 students participated in the survey. The distribution of students according to the Modules is as follows:

• 21 students in Module CEN002;
• 10 students in Module CEN208; and
• 18 students in Module CEN222.

4.1. Quantitative Findings

In response to Q1, “The handouts help in my learning during the class and enhance my understanding of and engagement with the course concepts”, the results are shown in Figure 4. In total, 92% of students rated this statement as “Agree” or “Strongly agree”.

Similarly, Q2 (“The problem-solving strategy on the handouts contributes to gaining knowledge”) also received a 92% agreement rate (Figure 5). These results affirm that handouts were effective in supporting understanding of class content and fostering active engagement. It is important to note that the few dissenting responses came from first-year students in CEN002, many of whom had been educated in more traditional, teacher-centred environments. Their unfamiliarity with active learning approaches likely contributed to their initial resistance.

As shown in Figure 6, 78% of students reported increased motivation to participate in class discussions due to the use of handouts. This transition from passive to active learning was particularly evident in modules featuring interactive, problem-based group activities.

In response to whether handouts improved the classroom learning environment (Q4), 92% of students “Agree” or “Strongly agree” (Figure 7), indicating that these activities helped foster a more interactive and supportive environment. Among the four students who reported “Neutral”, three were from CEN002, again highlighting the adjustment period required for students new to active learning.

When asked whether handouts were helpful for exam preparation or achieving overall learning outcomes of the module, 80% of students responded that they “Strongly agree” and “Agree” (Figure 8). Two students (again from CEN002) responded negatively that they “Strongly disagree”, which is understandable given that they had not yet experienced using handouts as revision tools in earlier modules.

Integrating short instructional videos was another outcome of reflective practice. Peer observations and student feedback supported this strategy, with 78% of students “Agree” and “Strongly agree” that videos are useful in understanding complex engineering concepts (Figure 9).

Across all items, students reported high motivation (M = 4.31), engagement (M = 4.28), and learning outcomes (M = 4.24).

• 92% agreed the handouts improved understanding of and engagement with the core concepts.
• 78% felt more motivated to participate in class.
• 84% believed the activities would help them perform better in the exam.

Students from senior-year modules exhibited slightly higher means, suggesting increasing receptivity to active learning with maturity and disciplinary confidence.

4.2. Qualitative Themes

Students’ responses to the open-ended question were analysed using NVivo. The responses were categorised into thematic nodes, each representing a student suggestion.

CEN222 (Year 3): Most students had no suggestions, indicating general satisfaction. Suggestions included:

• Provide handout solutions
• Add background explanations for formulas
• Increase the number of handouts
• Introduce more group coursework

CEN208 (Year 3): Around 60% reported no suggestions. Others proposed:

• Better explanation of teaching content and more videos
• Weekly inspection of the logbook
• Emphasised the value of handouts for review

CEN002 (Year 1): Most students expressed satisfaction. Suggestions included:

• More tasks and exam-related practice
• Include examples from real construction projects
• Speak more slowly in class
• Encourage more active participation.

Thematic analysis yielded three overarching themes with sub-themes:

• Enhanced motivation through autonomy and relevance

Students appreciated having “a chance to think and discuss” and described tasks as “more real and connected to engineering practice”. This sense of relevance and autonomy boosted intrinsic motivation.

2.

Engagement through collaboration and fun

Many reported that group problem-solving “made the class alive.” Friendly competition increased excitement without creating stress. Emotional engagement was evident in words like fun, interesting, and rewarding.

3.

Improved learning outcomes through scaffolding and feedback

Students valued the structured sequence of questions: “step-by-step problems help me understand logic.” Requests for model answers and more examples reflected a desire for competence confirmation.

4.3. Triangulated Insights

Triangulation between survey and qualitative data indicated strong convergence: perceived motivation correlated with reported engagement (r ≈ 0.78) and both predicted self-reported learning gains. Observational notes confirmed higher participation and peer discussion compared with earlier semesters.

5. Discussion

5.1. Linking Findings to Self-Determination Theory

The intervention’s success can be explained through SDT. Students’ comments and survey data indicate that autonomy, competence, and relatedness were substantially supported. Autonomy was promoted through opportunities to reason independently; competence was nurtured by scaffolded progression and feedback; relatedness arose from teamwork and shared accomplishment. Consistent with Deci and Ryan (2000), these factors collectively strengthened autonomous motivation, leading to greater persistence and enjoyment.

5.2. Engagement as the Behavioural Manifestation of Motivation

Results provide support to the view that motivation precedes engagement (Kahu, 2013). When students felt competent and autonomous, they became more behaviourally and emotionally involved. Observed increases in participation mirror Fredricks et al.’s (2004) tripartite model: behavioural (active discussion), emotional (enthusiasm), and cognitive (strategic thinking). The integration of interactive PBL activities thus operationalised engagement by converting psychological readiness into observable classroom behaviours.

5.3. Alignment with Constructivism and Learning Outcomes

Beyond motivation and engagement, students reported improved conceptual understanding and exam preparation. These perceptions suggest that activities are effectively aligned with intended learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2011). The stepwise problem structure paralleled Bloom’s hierarchy, from comprehension to application and evaluation, thereby facilitating deeper learning. Such alignment ensures that engagement is not just busy work but a pathway to cognitive development. The students’ requests for model solutions also highlight the value of formative feedback within aligned systems.

5.4. Transnational Context and Cultural Consideration

The Sino–UK context adds nuance to interpreting motivation and engagement. Many participants came from educational backgrounds emphasising respect for authority and exam performance (J. Li, 2012). Initially, some hesitated to speak during group tasks, but the low-stakes interactive activity gradually reduced anxiety. These findings align with studies showing that culturally responsive scaffolding can reconcile collectivist tendencies with participatory learning (Rienties & Tempelaar, 2013). Thus, PBL and interactive activities need not conflict with Confucian values if framed as cooperative rather than competitive.

5.5. Implications for Practice

The study offers several implications:

• Design for need satisfaction: Teachers should intentionally design tasks that satisfy autonomy, competence, and relatedness to sustain motivation.
• Balance structure and freedom: Over-structuring can hinder creativity; too little scaffolding can cause frustration. The handout approach achieved a middle ground.
• Use feedback as motivation: Immediate, formative feedback is vital for competence building.
• Encourage reflective dialogue: Integrating short reflections after activities helps consolidate conceptual learning and metacognitive awareness.

The iterative refinement of the intervention was informed by Brookfield’s reflective model, which encouraged the instructor to view teaching through multiple perspectives. By combining students’ feedback, collegial dialogue, and theoretical insights, the approach fostered a cycle of evidence-informed practice. This reflective stance ensured that modifications to the intervention, such as integrating multimedia resources or adjusting scaffolding levels, were pedagogically grounded rather than intuitive. The implications are meant for the Module leader to improve the learning experience of students.

5.6. Limitations and Future Research

The limitations of this mixed-methods action research study primarily stem from its scope and methodology, constraining the generalizability of the findings:

• The study was confined to three specific modules within the Civil and Architectural Engineering program at a single institution. This contextual specificity means the effectiveness and student perceptions of the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and interactive intervention may not be directly transferable to all civil engineering curricula or other engineering disciplines. This limitation is regarding the specific engineering discipline. Furthermore, the effectiveness of this method should be investigated in other modules of civil engineering and other science and engineering disciplines. When it comes to the social sciences discipline, due to the different nature of studies, some modifications of intervention should be applied in order to adjust for their needs.
• Due to the nature of the action research design and the enrolment in the selected modules, the study utilised a limited and non-randomised sample of students. This small, specific sample limits the external validity of the quantitative findings (e.g., self-reported motivation and engagement), restricting generalisation to the broader population of transnational engineering students. A total of 49 students participated in the survey. From a mathematical perspective, since the central limit theorem holds true for sample sizes greater than 30, statistical analysis can be applied to this sample (Zhao et al., 2016). Secondly, the survey only included students from the 3rd and 1st year in the Civil and Architectural engineering programme. There is a lack of opinion and experience of students from the 2nd and 4th years.
• While the mixed-methods approach provided some qualitative data, a significant portion of the quantitative data relied on student self-reported perceptions (motivation and engagement). This methodology is susceptible to response bias (e.g., social desirability bias), which may lead to an overestimation of the intervention’s positive effects. To provide more balanced data, the questionnaire should include a more balanced number of closed-ended and open-ended questions.

For future research, longitudinal studies could investigate whether increased motivation and engagement lead to sustained academic performance and professional competencies. In addition, it would be beneficial to explore other emerging technologies, such as virtual reality or AI-driven feedback systems, to further personalise learning, support diverse student needs, and improve students’ motivation (Glick et al., 2012; Kim, 2012; Wang et al., 2018). This study can serve as a foundation for developing AI-driven tools to support students in their learning process by engaging them.

6. Conclusions

This study investigated the impact of scaffolded, interactive problem-based activities on motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes in a transnational context of civil and architectural engineering. Results demonstrate that aligning constructivist pedagogy with motivation principles can transform student participation and perception of learning.

The results confirmed that handouts had an overall positive impact and worked quite well in supporting learning, with 92% of students finding them helpful for understanding of course concepts. Additionally, 78% of participants reported increased motivation to participate in class discussions, highlighting the role of formative tools in promoting active engagement. These outcomes addressed Research Question 1 and aligned with the study’s broader objective of fostering student-centred learning.

The collaborative tasks and group discussions significantly contributed to creating a more interactive learning environment. This was affirmed by 92% of students who felt that handouts improved classroom dynamics and learning engagement, directly addressing Research Question 2. Observations further indicated the development of enhanced teamwork and communication skills, which are essential for professional practice in civil engineering.

The incorporation of reflective teaching practices, guided by Brookfield’s six-lens model, was instrumental in adapting interventions to the transnational context.

Student perceptions of the handouts were overwhelmingly positive, as 80% found them beneficial for exam preparation. Moreover, open-ended responses provided constructive feedback, such as requests for more examples and tutorial sessions. This input emphasised the importance of incorporating student voice in refining educational design.

In light of these findings, several recommendations are proposed. Handouts should be supplemented with additional examples and detailed solutions to support independent learning outside of class. Expanding interactive group activities is essential for further fostering collaboration and communication skills. Reflective practices should remain central to teaching strategies, ensuring they adapt to the evolving needs of students and align with professional industry standards. Additionally, students could select the number of questions they wanted to solve and test the knowledge they had gained during the class. Since there can be a language barrier for students, AI tools would also enable language selection for them.

The findings reaffirm that motivation is the catalyst, engagement the expression, and learning outcomes the culmination of effective educational design. By reframing classroom practice around the satisfaction of psychological needs and constructive alignment, transnational institutions can bridge cultural divides and nurture globally competent engineers. As one participant aptly summarised: “These activities made me want to learn, not just pass the course”.