Advertisement

The Flow of Knowledge and Level of Satisfaction in Engineering Courses Based on Students’ Perceptions

  • Celina P. Leão
  • Filomena Soares
  • Anabela Guedes
  • M. Teresa Sena Esteves
  • Gustavo R. Alves
  • Isabel M. Brás Pereira
  • Romeu Hausmann
  • Clovis António Petry
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, the results of a questionnaire are analyzed to assess engineering students’ satisfaction toward their courses, working conditions, and academic environment, as well as the flow of knowledge perception along the first three curricular years. With a sample of 654 students from four higher education institutions and two countries, the study focused in eleven items, concerning teachers’ involvement perception, student–teacher interaction, course organization, and functioning, and overall satisfaction. Several research hypotheses were considered, and significant correlations were investigated. Results show that students, in average, are satisfied with the course and with student–teacher interaction, but perceive that teachers do not contextualize the contents in a professional perspective. The flow of knowledge is neither clearly understood. Two positive significant correlations exist between: students’ overall satisfaction and their expectations; the way students assess their interaction with teachers and the way they assess teachers’ involvement. No significant differences were found between the two countries.

Keywords

Students’ perceptions Satisfaction questionnaire Engineering courses Higher education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their acknowledgments to the higher education institutions and to all the students who accepted, on a voluntary basis, to collaborate in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Sinclaire JK (2014) An empirical investigation of student satisfaction with college courses. Res High Educ J 22Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tasirin SM, Omar MZ, Esa F, Zulkifli MN, Amil Z (2015) Measuring student satisfaction towards engineering postgraduate programme in UKM. J Eng Sci Technol 10:100–109 (Special Issue on UKM Teaching and Learning Congress 2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cronje T, Coll RK (2008) Student perceptions of higher education science and engineering learning communities. Res Sci Technol Educ 26(3):295–309.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140802276587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borges GR, Carvalho MJ, Domingues S, Cordeiro RCS (2016) Student’s trust in the university: analysing differences between public and private higher education institutions in Brazil. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 13:119–135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-016-0156-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lord SM, Layton RA, Ohland MW (2015) Multi-institution study of student demographics and outcomes in electrical and computer engineering in the USA. IEEE Trans Educ 58(3):141–150.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2014.2344622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaz RÁ, Freira D, Vernazza E, Alves H (2016) Can students’ satisfaction indexes be applied the same way in different countries? Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 13:101–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-016-0155-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alves H, Raposo M (2007) Student satisfaction index in Portuguese public higher education. High Educ Serv Ind J 27(6):795–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bell JS, Mitchell R (2000) Competency-based versus traditional cohort-based technical education: a comparison of students’ perception. J Career Tech Educ 17(1):5–22.  https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v17i1.589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bagchi U (2010) Delivering student satisfaction in higher education: a QFD approach. In: 7th international conference on service systems and service management (ICSSSM), Tokyo, Japan, 28–30 June 2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu H (2011) Students’ perception of university education—USA vs. China. Res High Educ J 10.  https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000002
  11. 11.
    Rjaibi N, Rabai LBA, Limam M (2012) Modeling the prediction of student’s satisfaction in face to face learning: an empirical investigation. In: International conference on education and e-learning innovations, Tunisia, 1–3 July 2012Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carvalho M, Batra B (2015) Pharmacy student’s survey: perceptions and expectations of pharmaceutical compounding. Int J Pharm Compd 19(1):18–27Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leão CP, Soares F, Guedes A, Sena-Esteves MT, Alves G, Brás-Pereira IM, Hausmann R, Petry CA (2015) Freshman’s perceptions in electrical/electronic engineering courses: early findings. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (TEEM 2015), Porto, Portugal, 7–9 October 2015. ACM, pp 361–367.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2808580.2808634
  14. 14.
    Leão CP, Soares F, Guedes A, Sena-Esteves MT, Alves G, Brás-Pereira IM, Hausmann R, Petry CA (2016) Sou caloiro de engenharia!: estudo multicaso em engenharia eléctrica/eletrónica/electrotécnica. In: COBENGE 2016, Brasil, 27–30 Sept (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Israel GD (1992) Determining sample size. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE, Publications Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen KA, Husman J, Borrego M, Shekhar P, Prince M, Demonbrun M, Finelli C, Henderson C, Waters C (2017) Students’ expectations, types of instruction, and instructor strategies predicting student response to active learning. Int J Eng Educ 33(1A):2–18Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weurlander M, Cronhjort M, Filipsson L (2016) Engineering students’ experiences of interactive teaching in calculus. High Educ Res Develop, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1238880
  19. 19.
    Alves AC, Moreira F, Lima RM, Sousa RM, Dinis-Carvalho J, Mesquita D, Fernandes S, van Hattum-Janssen N (2012) Project based learning in first year, first semester of industrial engineering and management: some results. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 international mechanical engineering congress & exposition (IMECE2012), Houston, Texas, USA, 9–15 NovGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de los Ríos I, Cazorlaa A, Díaz-Puentea JM, Yagüe JL (2010) Project–based learning in engineering higher education: two decades of teaching competences in real environments. Procedia—Socd Behav Sci 2(2):1368–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stappenbelt B, Rowles C (2009) Project based learning in the 1st year engineering curriculum. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference (AAEE 2009), Adelaide, University of Adelaide, Australia, pp 411–416Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Celina P. Leão
    • 1
  • Filomena Soares
    • 1
  • Anabela Guedes
    • 2
  • M. Teresa Sena Esteves
    • 2
  • Gustavo R. Alves
    • 2
  • Isabel M. Brás Pereira
    • 2
  • Romeu Hausmann
    • 3
  • Clovis António Petry
    • 4
  1. 1.Centro ALGORITMISchool of Engineering, University of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.Centro de Inovação em Engenharia e Tecnologia IndustrialInstituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto (ISEP)PortoPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Telecommunication EngineeringUniversity of BlumenauBlumenauBrazil
  4. 4.Federal Institute of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations