Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Combination of Innovative Pedagogical Theories to Enhance the Learning Output—A Case Study with Engineering Students

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Engineering Pedagogy

  • 132 Accesses

Abstract

An all-around growth of a nation cannot be possible without a good quality education at all the learning levels (from nursery to higher education). Therefore, providing an effective education is a crucial responsibility for professional educators. A detailed literature review highlights that several advanced and innovative pedagogical methods are available. However, in higher educational institutes, most of the educators, who are researchers and experts in a specific field, usually rely on their in-built teaching aptitude due to the lack of a formal pedagogical training. Therefore, the case studies demonstrating the application of existing pedagogical theories in real-time classrooms can be quite useful for such educators. In view of this, a case study is being presented which focuses on improving the performance of a small undergraduate engineering class consisting of students with poor past track record in ‘Engineering Mechanics’ course. The present case study demonstrates that an appropriate combination of innovative pedagogical techniques such as (i) personal interview-based course-content design, (ii) grading scheme focused on the all-around assessment and effective learning, (iii) experimentation with lecture delivery and examination pattern, and (iv) reward policy for motivation can significantly enhance the learning outcomes of the class. Based on this case study, several key recommendations are made that can be conveniently adopted by educators who are not specialists in pedagogical research. These recommendations highlight the importance of (i) course content, (ii) examination pattern, (iii) lecture delivery, (iv) grading scheme, (v) motivational techniques, and (vi) overall learning goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Almarshoud, A. (2011). The advancement in using remote laboratories in electrical engineering education: A review. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(5), 425–433.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anjum, N., & Badugu, S. (2020). A study of different techniques in educational data mining. In Advances in decision sciences, image processing, security and computer vision (pp. 562–571). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Banday, M. T., Ahmed, M., & Jan, T. R. (2014). Applications of e-learning in engineering education: A case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 406–413.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Banerjee, R., & Muley, V. P. (2007). Engineering education in India. In Report to energy systems engineering, IIT Bombay, sponsored by Observer Research Foundation, September 14, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barnett, R., & Hallam, S. (1999). Teaching for supercomplexity: A pedagogy for higher education. In Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (p. 137).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bernstein, D. (2013). How SoTL-active faculty members can be cosmopolitan assets to an institution. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Besterfield-Sacre, M., Atman, C. J., & Shuman, L. J. (1998). Engineering student attitudes assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(2), 133–141.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bhattacharya, B. (2004). What is ‘good teaching’ in engineering education in India? A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(3), 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brownhill, B. (2002). The Socratic method (pp. 70–78). Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brubacher, J. S. (1982). On the philosophy of higher education. The Jossey-Bass series in higher education (rev ed., p. 433) Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chen, T., Peng, L., Jing, B., Wu, C., Yang, J., & Cong, G. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on user experience with online education platforms in China. Sustainability, 12(18), 7329.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chinowsky, P. S., & Robinson, J. (1997). Enhancing civil engineering education through case studies. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Claris, L., & Riley, D. (2012). Situation critical: Critical theory and critical thinking in engineering education. Engineering Studies, 4(2), 101–120.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Clark, R., & Andrews, J. (2014). Relationships, variety and synergy: The vital ingredients for scholarship in engineering education? A case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(6), 585–600.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cotterill, S. T. (2015). Inspiring and motivating learners in higher education: The staff perspective. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 17, 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dahle, R., & Rasel, R. (2016). 3-d printing as an effective educational tool for mems design and fabrication. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(3), 210–215.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Boud, D. J., Hall, M., Molloy, E. K., Bennett, S., & Joughin, G. (2013). Assessment might dictate the curriculum, but what dictates assessment? Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Deshpande, A. A., & Huang, S. H. (2011). Simulation games in engineering education: A state-of-the-art review. Computer applications in engineering education, 19(3), 399–410.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Douglass, A. G., Smith, D. L., & Smith, L. J. (2013). An exploration of the characteristics of effective undergraduate peer-mentoring relationships. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 21(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2013.813740

    Google Scholar 

  21. Duță, N. (2015). Importance of the motivation of students for learning–Premise for academic performances. Inventory of reasons for which students learn. Euromentor Journal-Studies About Education, 02, 54–72.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fanghanel, J. (2013). Going public with pedagogical inquiries: SoTL as a methodology for faculty professional development. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fernández Rodríguez, J. C., Granados, R., Javier, J., & Miralles Muñoz, F. (2013). Engineering education through e-learning technology in Spain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Multimedia, 2(1), 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Finelli, C. J., Richardson, K., & Daly, S. (2013). Factors that influence faculty motivation of effective teaching practices in engineering. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 1–11).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gavin, K. (2011). Case study of a project-based learning course in civil engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(6), 547–558.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hardman, F. (2008). Promoting human capital: The importance of dialogic teaching in higher education. Asian Journal of University Education, 4(1), 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Healey, M., Matthews, K. E., & Cook-Sather, A. (2019). Writing scholarship of teaching and learning articles for peer-reviewed journals. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 7(2), 28–50.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Higley, K., & Marianno, C. (2001). Making engineering education fun. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 105–107.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hodges, L. C. (2013). Postcards from the edge of SoTL: A view from faculty development. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hopkins, R. F., Lyle, K. B., Hieb, J. L., & Ralston, P. A. (2016). Spaced retrieval practice increases college students’ short-and long-term retention of mathematics knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 853–873.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Howell, K. (1996). Introducing cooperative learning into dynamics lecture class. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(1), 69–72.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hutchings, P. (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Carnegie Publications, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jian, L. (2011). Reformation of outstanding engineers training-oriented curriculum system and course content. Research in Higher Education of Engineering, 5, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398–411.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kavade, M. V. (2020). An effective use of visual aids for teaching computer aided manufacturing (CAM) laboratory—A case study. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 33, 551–555.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III., & Swanson, R. A. (2012). The adult learner. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Knupsky, A., & Caballero, M. S. (2020). Do we know what they are thinking? Theory of mind and affect in the classroom. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 8(1), 108–121.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kolmos, A., & de Graaff, E. (2014). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education. Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, 141–161.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lackner, C., & Martini, T. (2017). Helping university students succeed at employment interviews: The role of self-reflection in E-portfolios. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 5(2), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lea, M. R. (2004). Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 739–756.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Du, X., & Thrane, M. (2008). Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(3), 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mahmood, S. (2021). Instructional strategies for online teaching in COVID-19 pandemic. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(1), 199–203.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Malik, A. S., & Malik, R. H. (2012). Twelve tips for effective lecturing in a PBL curriculum. Medical Teacher, 34(3), 198–204.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Malone, K. L., Tiarani, V., Irving, K. E., Kajfez, R., Lin, H., Giasi, T., & Edmiston, B. W. (2018). Engineering design challenges in early childhood education: Effects on student cognition and interest. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  46. McAuliffe, M., Hargreaves, D., Winter, A., & Chadwick, G. (2009). Does pedagogy still rule? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 15(1), 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  47. McKenna, A., Mongia, L., & Agogino, A. (1998). Capturing student’s teamwork and open-ended design performance in an undergraduate multimedia engineering design class. In Fie’98. 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Moving from ‘Teacher-Centered’ to ‘Learner-Centered’ Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 98ch36214) (Vol. 1, pp. 264–269).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mondada, F., Bonani, M., Raemy, X., Pugh, J., Cianci, C., Klaptocz, A., Magnenat, S., Zufferey, J.C., Floreano, D., Martinoli, A. (2009). The e-puck, a robot designed for education in engineering. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Autonomous robot systems and competitions (Vol. 1, pp. 59–65).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Montessori, M. (2013). The Montessori method. Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Núñez-Peña, M. I., Suárez-Pellicioni, M., & Bono, R. (2013). Effects of math anxiety on student success in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Oberlin, K. E. (2017). Five steps for delivering an effective and educational lecture. Cutis, 99(6), E10–E12.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Oke, S. (2004). Spreadsheet applications in engineering education: A review. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(6), 893–901.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Paudel, P. (2021). Online education: Benefits, challenges and strategies during and after COVID-19 in higher education. International Journal on Studies in Education, 3(2), 70–85.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers and Education, 95, 309–327.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Putwain, D. (2008). Examination stress and test anxiety. Psychologist, 21(12), 1026–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Romer, D. (1993). Do students go to class? Should they? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Roxa, T. (2018). Making use of educational research in higher education–academic teachers engaged in translational research. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 6(2), 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Russell, J. S., & McCullouch, B. G. (1990). Civil engineering education: Case study approach. Journal of professional issues in engineering, 116(2), 164–174.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Sampaio, A. Z. (2012). Virtual reality technology applied in teaching and research in civil engineering education. Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, 1(4), 152–163.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sankar, C. S., Varma, V., & Raju, P. (2008). Use of case studies in engineering education: Assessment of changes in cognitive skills. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 134(3), 287–296.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Shekhar, P., & Borrego, M. (2018). ‘Not hard to sway’: A case study of student engagement in two large engineering classes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(4), 585–596.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Shoop, B. L., & Ressler, E. K. (2011). Developing the critical thinking, creativity and innovation of undergraduate engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(5), 1072.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Retrieval practice with short-answer, multiple-choice, and hybrid tests. Memory, 22(7), 784–802.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Striolo, C., Pollock, M., & Godwin, A. (2020). Staying or leaving: contributing factors for UK engineering students’ decisions to pursue careers in engineering industry. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325–341.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Swanson, C. J. (2016). Positioned as expert scientists: Learning science through mantle-of-the-expert at years 7/8 [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Waikato.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Trifoni, A., & Shahini, M. (2011). How does exam anxiety affect the performance of university students? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Trigwell K, & Prosser M (2020a) Teachers’ experiences of teaching. In Exploring university teaching and learning. Palgrave Pivot.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. (2020b). Changing and developing teachers’ approaches to teaching. In Exploring university teaching and learning. Palgrave Pivot.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.-L., & Wang, X. (2018). A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6), 1204.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Woodfield, R., Jessop, D., & McMillan, L. (2006). Gender differences in undergraduate attendance rates. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author dedicates this article to Prof. Sudhir K. Jain, Former Director of IIT Gandhinagar and currently the Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University, for encouraging and motivating the author to write this article. Author is also thankful to Dr. Purnima K. Bajre, Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Mandi for critical discussions on the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflict of Interest

Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Mandi, 175075, Himachal Pradesh, India

    Shashank Pathak

Authors
  1. Shashank Pathak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shashank Pathak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, India

    Uday Shanker Dixit

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kettering University, Flint, MI, USA

    Raghu Echempati

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Silchar, Silchar, India

    Sudip Dey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pathak, S. (2023). A Combination of Innovative Pedagogical Theories to Enhance the Learning Output—A Case Study with Engineering Students. In: Dixit, U.S., Echempati, R., Dey, S. (eds) Engineering Pedagogy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8016-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8016-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-8015-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-8016-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation