Student-Centred Reform in Engineering Laboratory Education: A Thematic Analysis of Improvement Suggestions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63996/njte.v25i1.57Keywords:
Engineering education, Student voice, Laboratory learning, Educational reform, Thematic analysis, Student feedbackAbstract
Engineering education continues to grapple with challenges of student engagement and retention, particularly in relation to practical work. While hands-on experiences are central to professional preparation, students often report a mismatch between their expectations and actual practice. This study addresses the issue by conducting a thematic analysis of 274 student suggestions for improvement. Six themes emerged: practical relevance and authentic learning (28.8%), resources and infrastructure (27.0%), teaching quality and pedagogical support (15.3%), time allocation and scheduling (10.9%), assessment and feedback (5.5%), and learning environment and atmosphere (5.1%). The results point to a continuing mismatch between classroom learning and the realities of professional practice. Students consistently emphasised the importance of practical experiences that are not only authentic and well-supported with resources but also underpinned by sound pedagogy. By placing student perspectives at the centre, this study offers an empirically grounded basis for rethinking the design of practical work in engineering education, with the aim of bringing it into closer alignment with the expectations of industry.
References
National Academy of Engineering. (2018). Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of Engineers. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25284
Graham, R. (2018). The Global State of the Art in Engineering Education (1st ed., pp. 1–170). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://www.rhgraham.org/resources/Global-state-of-the-art-in-engineering-education---March-2018.pdf
Bovill, C., Cook‐Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2011.568690
Maloshonok, N., & Shcheglova, I. (2021). From “Customer” to “Partner”: Approaches to Conceptualization of Student-University Relationships. University Development and Administration, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3364-4_4-1
Gullberg, A., Andersson, K., Ivarsson, J., & Henni Söderberg. (2025). How does Emotion and Matter Matter in Engineering Education? Journal of Technology Education, 36(2), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v36i2.a.2
Quaye, S. J., Harper, S. R., & Pendakur, S. L. (2020). Student engagement in higher education: theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Brooman, S., Darwent, S., & Pimor, A. (2015). The student voice in higher education curriculum design: is there value in listening? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(6), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.910128
Haupt, S., & Erasmus, H. (2018). THE STUDENT VOICE IN CURRICULUM TRANSFORMATION. INTED Proceedings, 1, 6428–6433. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.1515
Boelt, A. M., Holgaard, J. E., & Kolmos, A. (2023). A Thematic Analysis of Engineering Students’ Experiences of Teamwork in Problem-Based Learning*. International Journal of Engineering Education , 39(3), 627–642. https://www.ijee.ie/1atestissues/Vol39-3/13_ijee4338.pdf
Tinto, V. (2017). Through the Eyes of Students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621917
Graham, R. (2017). The global state-of-the-art in engineering education Outcomes of Phase 1 benchmarking study. https://www.rhgraham.org/resources/Phase-1-engineering-education-benchmarking-study-2017_original.pdf
Krivickas, R. V., & Krivickas, J. (2007). Laboratory Instruction in Engineering Education. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 11(2). https://www.wiete.com.au/journals/GJEE/Publish/Vol.11,No.2/Krivickas.pdf
Rokos, L., & Zavodska, R. (2020). Efficacy of Inquiry-Based and “Cookbook” Labs at Human Physiology Lessons at University Level - Is There an Impact in Relation to Acquirement of New Knowledge and Skills?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1909. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9124
Nwuke, T. J. (2024). Provision and Utilization of Physical Resources for Effective Teaching and Learning Effectiveness in Public Universities in Rivers State. International Journal of Applied and Scientific Research, 2(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.59890/ijasr.v2i2.1412
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for Educational Practice of the Science of Learning and Development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered Education and Constructivism: Challenges, Concerns, and Clarity for Teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311
Dwikamayuda, D. M., Ayu, I., Ekawati, N., Nitiasih, P. K., & Sudatha, I. G. W. (2024). Empowering Education: Integrating Critical Pedagogy into Transformative Teaching Strategies. Indonesian Journal of Educational Development (IJED), 5(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.59672/ijed.v5i2.3823
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
