Feedback for relatedness and competence: Can feedback in blended learning contribute to optimal rigor, basic needs, and motivation?

Bombaerts, Gunter; Nickel, Philip J.

doi:10.1109/educon.2017.7942984

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Co-teaching activities involving engineering and philosophy or social sciences instructors can address the problem of expertise and convey to students a message about the importance of this subject. Nevertheless, it is an expensive, time and labour-intensive approach, which requires long-term contact and research efforts (Bombaerts et al, 2021). Moreover, this approach is considered "second-rate academic work" (Taebi & Kastenberg, 2019, p. 1768, and is not properly acknowledged in promotion and hiring schemes (National Academy of Engineering, 2017, p. 12).…”

Section: Lack Of Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the most popular methods for teaching engineering ethics are case studies (Colby & Sullivan, 2008;Herkert, 2000;Yadav & Barry, 2009). Nevertheless, despite the variety of teaching methods and the prevalence of case studies, there is limited empirical research that could elucidate the effectiveness of each teaching approach towards the attainment of clearly defined goals, as well as their impact on student engagement (Bagdasarov et al, 2013;Bombaerts et al, 2021;Martin et al, 2021;Thiel et al, 2013, p. 267). There is also little known on how cases are presented in engineering ethics instruction and the kind of cases used (Yadav et al, 2007), how they should be taught (Davis & Yadav, 2014, p. 172), and what approach serves the achievement of which learning goals (Romkey, 2015).…”

Section: Empirical Research Guiding the Design And Use Of Teaching Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Students tend to show disinterest, resistance, and difficulties when exposed to ethics and societal considerations (Bairaktarova, & Evangelou, 2011;Polmear et al, 2018, p. 9), as well as a lack of emotional engagement with the course content (Balakrishnan & Tarlocha, 2015;Newberry, 2004). Students also prefer to have ethics as a non-compulsory topic that is not assessed (Sucala, 2019), and invest less time preparing for ethics courses (Bombaerts & Nickel, 2017;Martin, 2020).…”

Section: Student Receptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Multi-level Review of Engineering Ethics Education: Towards a Socio-technical Orientation of Engineering Education for Ethics

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to review the empirical and theoretical research on engineering ethics education, by focusing on the challenges reported in the literature. The analysis is conducted at four levels of the engineering education system. First, the individual level is dedicated to findings about teaching practices reported by instructors. Second, the institutional level brings together findings about the implementation and presence of ethics within engineering programmes. Third, the level of policy situates findings about engineering ethics education in the context of accreditation. Finally, there is the level of the culture of engineering education. The multi-level analysis allows us to address some of the limitations of higher education research which tends to focus on individual actors such as instructors or remains focused on the levels of policy and practice without examining the deeper levels of paradigm and purpose guiding them. Our approach links some of the challenges of engineering ethics education with wider debates about its guiding paradigms. The main contribution of the paper is to situate the analysis of the theoretical and empirical findings reported in the literature on engineering ethics education in the context of broader discussions about the purpose of engineering education and the aims of reform programmes. We conclude by putting forward a series of recommendations for a socio-technical oriented reform of engineering education for ethics.

show abstract

Section: Lack Of Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Empirical Research Guiding the Design And Use Of Teaching Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Student Receptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Multi-level Review of Engineering Ethics Education: Towards a Socio-technical Orientation of Engineering Education for Ethics

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Students' evaluation and motivation towards these courses appears to be mixed [10,11]. Thus, exploring ways to make these courses motivating for students is a priority for the course teachers and curriculum designers.…”

Section: Self-determination Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Learning Context on Engineering Students’ Perceived Basic Needs and Motivation

Doulougeri

Bombaerts

2019 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Learning context plays an important role in students' motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is important in order to foster students' deep learning, better performance and overall well-being. According to Self Determination Theory (SDT) of motivation, three basic needs should be satisfied for students to achieve intrinsic motivation: the need for autonomy, the need for competence and the need for relatedness. However, less attention has been given to what influences those basic needs for engineering students in different learning contexts. In this study we used the SDT framework to compare two different learning contexts: project-based courses and mixed courses (lecture based courses with group assignments) to explore whether students experience differences in the satisfaction of basic needs and motivation. We aimed to answer the following research questions: RQ1: What is the difference between students' perceived satisfaction of basic needs and motivation in mixed and project courses? RQ2: Which factors are considered supportive for students' satisfaction of basic needs in each learning context? Methods: Two studies were conducted in order to answer the research questions. A quantitative study was conducted across seven mixed courses and five project courses. Students completed questionnaires on basic needs and motivation at the end of the course. In addition, a qualitative study that focused on five of the courses was conducted, where focus groups with teachers and students were used to identify motivating and demotivating factors for each learning context. Results: The students attending the project courses reported more satisfaction of autonomy, competence and relatedness, but no differences in motivation. The qualitative study revealed that among the most motivating factors for project-based courses were: real-life problems or involvement of real stakeholders, freedom to work in an interesting project, feedback, teamwork and relevance to major studies. However, in project-based courses students reported more uncertainty or lack of guidance that affected negatively their motivation. In addition, even though the project-based courses were more autonomy supportive, some aspects of them were considered quite restricting and thus, unmotivating. The balance between autonomy and structure was a major challenge for teachers especially in project courses. Discussion: Project based courses do not guarantee higher students' motivation in learning. Even though students enjoy the autonomy of project-based courses, it is important that learning context address students' expectations and offer the right amount of autonomy and guidance in order to motivate them. SDT is a theoretical framework that Engineering Education can use in order to inform pedagogical interventions to foster motivation and thus improve students' learning. Research questions RQ1: What is the difference between students' perceived satisfaction of basic needs and autonomous motivation in mixed and project courses? RQ2: Which factors are...

show abstract

“…In addition, they perceived feedback as insufficient and they found the content of the course either uninteresting or unrelated to their studies. This led to low intrinsic motivation and high amotivation (see also [21]).…”

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First-Year Engineering Students’ Experiences with a Course of Ethics and History of Technology

Bombaerts

Doulougeri

2019 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous analyses of an 11-week course on ethics and history of technology, taught to 2000+ first-year engineering students showed low motivation for and satisfaction with this course of students in Informatics and Applied Mathematics (INF/AM) and in BioMedical Technology (BMT). In our inquiry, we started from the following research questions: "Which aspects of the USE Basic course do students of INF/AM and BMT consider interesting and challenging? What are the differences in the 2018 version in students' deep learning and motivation with the course compared to 2017 after the implemented changes?" We combined three fields for the background of our research: deep learning, learning environment and self-determination theory. We used a mixed-method approach focusing on the two target groups INF/AM and BMT. We performed qualitative focus group discussion, a test run before the course and observations. Validated quantitative questionnaires on deep learning, learning environment and motivation were electronically taken. T-tests were used to compare results with the previous year. Qualitative results showed that BMT students consider themselves as mere cogwheels and not responsible and that many words in their courses (as 'project', 'feedback' …) mean completely different things in the courses of the own department. Students of INF and TW showed a different profile. TW students were quite aware of what was happening in the world at the moment, INF were far less. Both wanted clarity (even 'baby-steps' in their own words), but INF students needed much more linearity, for example in study guides and explanations of assignments. INF students in our sample acknowledged to have difficulties reading things. The quantitative results of the differences between the 2017 and 2018 for the history and the ethics part for the INF/TW and the BMT showed a mix pattern and will be discussed. The conclusions indicated that the apparent disinterest of INF/TW and BMT students goes far deeper than a uselessness of ethics and history for first-year engineers. It pointed at their way of looking at reality and at their own professional identity. It pointed at the difficulties of general courses to offer educational methods that were interpreted differently from student groups of different departments. And it pointed at differences at basic competences needed to dive into deep learning and to be motivated by what is offered by the course. Solutions are discussed.

show abstract

Feedback for relatedness and competence: Can feedback in blended learning contribute to optimal rigor, basic needs, and motivation?

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

A Multi-level Review of Engineering Ethics Education: Towards a Socio-technical Orientation of Engineering Education for Ethics

A Multi-level Review of Engineering Ethics Education: Towards a Socio-technical Orientation of Engineering Education for Ethics

The Influence of Learning Context on Engineering Students’ Perceived Basic Needs and Motivation

First-Year Engineering Students’ Experiences with a Course of Ethics and History of Technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About