CULTIVATING ENGINEERING LITERACY THROUGH A FIVE-STAGE UP-IDEA PEDAGOGICAL FRAMEWORK: EVIDENCE FROM A DIGITAL CIRCUIT COURSE REFORM
Keywords:
Engineering literacy, Digital circuit design, Pedagogical innovation, Blended learning, Engineering education, Higher educationAbstract
Engineering literacy cultivation in foundational engineering courses remains a persistent challenge in higher education. Traditional approaches often emphasize analytical proficiency over design competence and component knowledge over systems thinking. This study presents a pedagogical reform aimed at fostering engineering literacy through a five-stage Up-IDEA framework in a Digital Circuit and Logic Design course. The reform was implemented over three years with more than 2,000 students across 13 majors at Xi’an University of Posts and Telecommunications. The framework comprises five interdependent stages: Up (pre-class design submission), Inquiry (problem-driven classroom engagement), Design (software-based hardware design using Verilog HDL), Engineering (case-based practical application with engineering ethics integration), and Assess (multi-dimensional reflective evaluation). A quasi-experimental design was employed, triangulating learning platform analytics, questionnaire surveys, and institutional assessment data. Implementation yielded measurable improvements across three dimensions. Student engagement significantly increased, with class attendance reaching 98% and homework completion reaching 100%. Over 80% of students independently resolved more than 70% of pre-class learning problems, indicating enhanced autonomous learning capacity. Engineering practice outcomes showed 342 students receiving national or provincial awards in electronic design and FPGA competitions over three years. Comparative analysis with pre-reform cohorts indicated improvements in both student participation and design performance. The Up-IDEA framework provides a structured approach to integrating engineering literacy cultivation into foundational engineering courses. The closed-loop pedagogical cycle — connecting pre-class preparation, inquiry-based instruction, design-oriented learning, practical application, and reflective evaluation — offers a transferable model for comparable engineering education contexts.References
[1] Liu K, Jia P, Zhang S. Transformation and iteration of the promotion paradigm of New Engineering Education construction. Research in Higher Education of Engineering, 2021, 69(1): 197-200.
[2] Yu JQ, Zhao YZ, He YF. Reform practice of digital circuit and logic design course and construction of first-class course. Research in Higher Education of Engineering, 2023(2): 142-148.
[3] Jiang SY. Digital logic design and application: Teaching reform and exploration oriented to engineering practice. Journal of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (Social Sciences Edition), 2022, 24(3): 89-95.
[4] Ren AF. Teaching reform and practice of digital system design based on domestic FPGA. Journal of Electrical and Electronic Teaching, 2023, 45(1): 56-60.
[5] Crawley EF, Malmqvist J, Östlund S, et al. Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. 2nd ed. Springer, 2014.
[6] Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014, 111(23): 8410-8415.
[7] Garrison DR, Vaughan ND. Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass, 2008.
[8] Li XH, Cheng H, Zhang Y. Course reform of digital circuit and logic design under the background of new engineering. Heilongjiang Education (Theory and Practice), 2023(12): 52-54.
[9] Zhang YJ, Lu JH, Sun L. Application of “Trinity” teaching model in digital circuit course. Journal of Electrical and Electronic Teaching, 2022, 44(6): 43-47.
[10] Li D. Design and practice of multi-dimensional process assessment in engineering courses. Research in Higher Education of Engineering, 2020(4): 178-183.
[11] Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, et al. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay Company, 1956.
[12] Felder RM, Brent R. Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 2005, 94(1): 57-72.
[13] Li FQ. Theoretical basis and instructional design of blended teaching. Modern Educational Technology, 2016, 26(9): 18-24.