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]
- 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