Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Aspects of Self-regulated Learning Among Engineering Students Learning Digital System Design in the FPGA Environment—Methodology and Findings

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Embedded Engineering Education

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 421))

Abstract

This study addressed the case of the development, implementation and evaluation of an innovative platform for teaching computer and embedded systems engineering, including hardware, software and instructional materials for students. The evaluation methodology was derived from the Self-Regulated Learning Theory which relates to cognitive, meta-cognitive, motivational and self-efficacy aspects of learning. Data were collected by administrating the Lab Feedback Questionnaire, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ), and interviews held with students and teachers. The findings that were obtained over two years taught us that one of the most important factors affecting the success of an advanced technological learning platform is the careful design of students’ assignments, for example, to progress gradually from solving basic exercises, to solving more significant problems and dealing with broad projects.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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. Kastelan, I., Lopez, B.J.R., Artetxe, G.E., Piwinski, J., Barak, M., Temerinac, M.: E2LP: a unified embedded engineering learning platform. Microprocess. Microsyst. 38(8), 933–946 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zagar, M., Frid, N., Knezovic, J., Hofman, D., Kovac, M., Sruk, V., Mlinaric, H.: Unified, multiple target, computer engineering learning platform: design results and learning outcomes. In: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, pp. 926–929 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Owens, J.M.: Program Evaluation. The Guilford Press, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boekaerts, M.: Self-regulated learning: where we are today. Int. J. Educ. Res. 31(6), 445–457 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pintrich, P.R.: Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zimmerman, B.J.: Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educ. Psychol. 25, 3–17 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Flavell, J.H.: Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34(10), 906–911 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pintrich, P.R.: A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16(4), 385–407 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schon, D.A.: Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. Jossey-Bass Inc, San Francisco (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Can Psychol 49(1), 14–23 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bandura, A.: Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. WH Freeman and Company, New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barak, M.: Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 20(4), 381–401 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Lawanto, O., Santoso, H.B., Goodridge, W., Butler, D., Cartier, S.: Task interpretation, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies of higher and lower performers in an engineering design project: an exploratory study of college freshmen. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29(2), 459–475 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schraw, G., Kent, J.C., Kendall, H.: Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Res. Sci. Educ. 36(1–2), 111–139 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thomas, J.W.: A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning, Autodesk, San Rafael, CA. (2000). Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.bie.org/files/researchreviewPBL.pdf

  16. Barak, M., Shachar, A.: Project in Technology and Fostering Learning: The Potential and its Realization. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 17(3), 285–296 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E.: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ. Psychol. 41(2), 75–86 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barak, M.: Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies. J Eng Des Technol 11(3), 316–333 (2013)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Olds, B.M., Moskal, B.M., Miller, R.L.: Assessment in engineering education: evolution, approaches and future collaborations. J. Eng. Educ. 94(1), 13–25 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Borrego, M., Douglas, E.P., Amelink, C.T.: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. J. Eng. Educ. 98(1), 53–66 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koro-Ljungberg, M., Douglas, E.P.: State of qualitative research in engineering education: meta-analysis of JEE Articles, 2005–2006. J. Eng. Educ. 97(2), 163–175 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawanto, O., Santoso, H.B., Yang, L.: Understanding of the relationship between interest and expectancy for success in engineering design activity in Grades 9–12. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 15(1), 152–161 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rotgans, J.I., Schmidt, H.G.: The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire: a measure for students’ general motivational beliefs and learning strategies? Asia-pacific Educ. Res. 19(2), 357–369 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bassili, J.N.: Motivation and cognitive strategies in the choice to attend lectures or watch them online. J. Distance Educ. 22(3), 129–148 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Al Khatib, S.A.: Meta-cognitive self-regulated learning and motivational beliefs as predictors of college students’ performance. Int. J. Res. Educ. 27, 57–72 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Artino, A.R.J.: Review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. University of Connecticut, ERIC Number: ED499083. (2005). http://eric.ed.gov/?q=artino&pg=2&id=ED499083

  27. Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7(1), 57–78 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schutt, R.K.: Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gadermann, A.M., Guhn, M., Zumbo, B.D.: Estimating ordinal reliability for likert-type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual, empirical, and practical quide. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 17(3), 1–13 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zumbo, B.D., Gadermann, A.M., Zeisser, C.: Ordinal versions of coefficient alpha and theta for likert rating scales. J. Modern Appl. Stat. Methods 6(1), 21–29 (2007). http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/jmasm/vol6/iss1/4

    Google Scholar 

  31. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Patton, M.: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kline, P.: The Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2nd edn. Routledge, London (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nunnaly, J.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human behavior. Plenum Press, New York (1985)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Technology Education, Faculty of the Humanities and Social Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Moshe Barak & Zvi Azia

  2. Department of Computing and Control Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Ivan Kastelan

Authors
  1. Moshe Barak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan Kastelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zvi Azia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moshe Barak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Automation and Measurements PIAP, Industrial Research Institute for, Warsaw, Poland

    Roman Szewczyk

  2. Dept of Computing & Control Engineering, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Ivan Kaštelan

  3. Department for Computing and Control, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Miodrag Temerinac

  4. Dept. of Sci. & Tech. Edu., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Moshe Barak

  5. Fac. of Ele. Engg. & Computing, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Vlado Sruk

Appendices

Appendix 1

1.1 Lab Feedback Questionnaire (LFQ)

Dear Student,

Pleas mark the effectiveness of the lab experiment on the scale 1 … 10

  1. 1.

    Clarity of theoretical background—documentation, theoretical explanations

    • (1-very low … 10-very high) ___ Explain/give example:

  2. 2.

    Clarity of technical instructions, exercises and problems

    • (1-very low … 10-very high) ____ Explain/give example:

  3. 3.

    Total time and efforts required

    • (1-very much … 10-very little) ____ Explain/give example:

  4. 4.

    Ease of use—the environment, Xilinx software and BIN download software

    • (1-very difficult …10-very easy) ____ Explain/give example:

  5. 5.

    Ease of use—the platform

    • (1-very difficult …10-very easy) ____ Explain/give example:

  6. 6.

    Feeling of immersion—being part of the environment, control over the system

    • (1-very low … 10-very high) ___ Explain/give example:

  7. 7.

    To what extent do you think you learned something valuable?

    • (1-very low … 10-very high) ___ Explain/give example:

  8. 8.

    Overall satisfaction

    • (1-very low … 10-very high) ___ Explain/give example:

Appendix 2

2.1 Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ)

The CSUQ consists of 19 items from four categories:

  1. a.

    Overall satisfaction (items 1, 19)

  2. b.

    System usability (items 2, 4.6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18)

  3. c.

    Information quality (items 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16)

  4. d.

    Interface quality (items 3, 14)

Scale for students’ answers, to each item (NA—Not Applicable)

Strongly AGREE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

NA

Strongly DISAGREE

Comments:

  1. 1.

    Overall, I am satisfied with how easy it is to use this system.

  2. 2.

    It is simple to use this system.

  3. 3.

    The interface of this system is pleasant.

  4. 4.

    I am able to complete my work quickly using this system.

  5. 5.

    It is easy to find the information I need.

  6. 6.

    I am able to efficiently complete my work using this system.

  7. 7.

    I feel comfortable using this system.

  8. 8.

    The information (such as online help, on-screen messages and other documentation) provided with this system is clear.

  9. 9.

    I believe I became productive quickly using this system.

  10. 10.

    The system gives error messages that clearly tell me how to fix problems.

  11. 11.

    I can effectively complete my work using this system.

  12. 12.

    Whenever I make a mistake using the system, I recover easily and quickly.

  13. 13.

    The information provided with the system is easy to understand.

  14. 14.

    I like using the interface of this system.

  15. 15.

    The system information (such as online help, on-screen messages and other documentation) is effective in helping me complete my work.

  16. 16.

    The organization of information on the system screens is clear.

  17. 17.

    This system has all the functions and capabilities I expect it to have.

  18. 18.

    It was easy to learn to use this system.

  19. 19.

    Overall, I am satisfied with this system.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Barak, M., Kastelan, I., Azia, Z. (2016). Exploring Aspects of Self-regulated Learning Among Engineering Students Learning Digital System Design in the FPGA Environment—Methodology and Findings. In: Szewczyk, R., Kaštelan, I., Temerinac, M., Barak, M., Sruk, V. (eds) Embedded Engineering Education. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 421. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27540-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27540-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27539-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27540-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation