Involving students in engineering course design: a combined approach based on constructive alignment and multi-criteria decision-making

References

• Allan, J. 1996. “Learning Outcomes in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 21 (1): 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, T., and J. Shattuck. 2012. “Design-Based Research.” Educational Researcher 41 (1): 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. 1996. “Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment.” Higher Education 32 (3): 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs, J., and C. Tang. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. McGraw-hill education (UK).
   Google Scholar
• Blair, E., and K. Valdez Noel. 2014. “Improving Higher Education Practice Through Student Evaluation Systems: Is the Student Voice Being Heard?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (7): 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.875984.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. 1956. “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain.” New York: McKay 20 (24): 1.
   Google Scholar
• Blumberg, P. 2009. “Maximizing Learning Through Course Alignment and Experience with Different Types of Knowledge.” Innovative Higher Education 34 (2): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9095-2.
   Google Scholar
• Bovill, C. 2019. “A co-Creation of Learning and Teaching Typology: What Kind of co-Creation are you Planning or Doing?” International Journal for Students as Partners 3 (2): 91–98. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v3i2.3953.
   Google Scholar
• Bovill, C. 2020a. Co-creating Learning and Teaching: Towards Relational Pedagogy in Higher Education. St Albans: Critical Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bovill, C. 2020b. “Co-creation in Learning and Teaching: The Case for a Whole-Class Approach in Higher Education.” Higher Education 79 (6): 1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovill, C., and C. J. Bulley. 2011. “A Model of Active Student Participation in Curriculum Design: Exploring Desirability and Possibility.” In Improving Student Learning (18) Global Theories and Local Practices: Institutional, Disciplinary and Cultural Variations, edited by C. Rust, 176–188. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Educational Development.
   Google Scholar
• Bovill, C., A. Cook-Sather, and P. Felten. 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.
   Google Scholar
• Bovill, C., A. Cook-Sather, P. Felten, L. Millard, and N. Moore-Cherry. 2016. “Addressing Potential Challenges in co-Creating Learning and Teaching: Overcoming Resistance, Navigating Institutional Norms and Ensuring Inclusivity in Student–Staff Partnerships.” Higher Education 71 (2): 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooman, S., S. Darwent, and A. Pimor. 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christie, M., and E. De Graaff. 2017. “The Philosophical and Pedagogical Underpinnings of Active Learning in Engineering Education.” European Journal of Engineering Education 42 (1): 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1254160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cober, R., E. Tan, J. Slotta, H. J. So, and K. D. Könings. 2015. “Teachers as Participatory Designers: Two Case Studies with Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments.” Instructional Science 43 (2): 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9339-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook-Sather, A. 2011. “Layered Learning: Student Consultants Deepening Classroom and Life Lessons.” Educational Action Research 19 (1): 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2011.547680.
   Google Scholar
• Cook-Sather, A. 2014. “Multiplying Perspectives and Improving Practice: What Can Happen When Undergraduate Students Collaborate with College Faculty to Explore Teaching and Learning.” Instructional Science 42 (1): 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9292-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coşkun, S., Y. Kayıkcı, and E. Gençay. 2019. “Adapting Engineering Education to Industry 4.0 Vision.” Technologies 7 (1): 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies7010010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawley, E. F., J. Malmqvist, S. Östlund, D. R. Brodeur, and K. Edström. 2014. “The CDIO Approach.” In Rethinking Engineering Education, edited by Sören Östlund and Kristina Edström, 11–45. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, B., and D. Sumara. 2002. “Constructivist Discourses and the Field of Education: Problems and Possibilites.” Educational Theory 52 (4): 409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2002.00409.x.
   Google Scholar
• Dymova, L., P. Sevastjanov, and A. Tikhonenko. 2013. “A Direct Interval Extension of TOPSIS Method.” Expert Systems with Applications 40 (12): 4841–4847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edström, K., J. Törnevik, M. Engström, and Å Wiklund. 2003. “Student Involvement in Principled Change: Understanding the Student Experience.” In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium Improving Student Learning, OCSLD, Oxford, England.
   Google Scholar
• Erpolat Taşabat, S. 2019. “A Novel Multicriteria Decision-Making Method Based on Distance, Similarity, and Correlation: DSC TOPSIS.” Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2019: 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, M. B., and R. J. Wlodkowski. 2009. Diversity and Motivation: Culturally Responsive Teaching in College. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Gulati, R., and T. Soni. 2015. “Digitization: A Strategic key to Business.” Journal of Advances in Business Management 1 (2): 60–67. https://doi.org/10.14260/jadbm/2015/8.
   Google Scholar
• Hadgraft, R. G., and A. Kolmos. 2020. “Emerging Learning Environments in Engineering Education.” Australasian Journal of Engineering Education 25 (1): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2020.1713522.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, C. L., and K. Yoon. 1981. “Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making.” In Multiple Attribute Decision Making, edited by M. Beckmann and H. P. Künzi, 58–191. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kamvysi, K., K. Gotzamani, A. Andronikidis, and A. C. Georgiou. 2014. “Capturing and Prioritizing Students’ Requirements for Course Design by Embedding Fuzzy-AHP and Linear Programming in QFD.” European Journal of Operational Research 237 (3): 1083–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.02.042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Könings, K. D., C. Bovill, and P. Woolner. 2017. “Towards an Interdisciplinary Model of Practice for Participatory Building Design in Education.” European Journal of Education 52 (3): 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Könings, K. D., and S. McKenney. 2017. “Participatory Design of (Built) Learning Environments.” European Journal of Education 52 (3): 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Könings, K. D., T. Seidel, and J. J. van Merriënboer. 2014. “Participatory Design of Learning Environments: Integrating Perspectives of Students, Teachers, and Designers.” Instructional Science 42 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9305-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krathwohl, D. R. 2002. “A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview.” Theory Into Practice 41 (4): 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D., J. Kinzie, J. H. Schuh, and E. J. Whitt. 2011. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Li, G., C. Yuan, S. Kamarthi, M. Moghaddam, and X. Jin. 2021. “Data Science Skills and Domain Knowledge Requirements in the Manufacturing Industry: A gap Analysis.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 60: 692–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.07.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, S. F., Y. L. Lee, Y. Z. Lin, and C. F. Tseng. 2013. “Applying Quality Function Deployment in Industrial Design Curriculum Planning.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23 (4): 1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9228-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lizzio, A., K. Wilson, and R. Simons. 2002. “University Students’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Academic Outcomes: Implications for Theory and Practice.” Studies in Higher Education 27 (1): 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz, M., M. Rüßmann, R. Strack, K. L. Lueth, and M. Bolle. 2015. Man and Machine in Industry 4.0: How Will Technology Transform the Industrial Workforce Through 2025. The Boston Consulting Group, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Malmqvist, J., M. Knutson Wedel, and M. Enelund. 2011. “Constructive Alignment (CA) for Degree Projects-Intended Learning Outcomes, Teaching and Assessment.” In Proceedings of 7th International CDIO Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Martens, S. E., S. N. Meeuwissen, D. H. Dolmans, C. Bovill, and K. D. Könings. 2019. “Student Participation in the Design of Learning and Teaching: Disentangling the Terminology and Approaches.” Medical Teacher 41: 1203–1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1615610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., and T. C. Reeves. 2018. Conducting Educational Design Research. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, N. M., and D. D. Nulty. 2009. “How to use (Five) Curriculum Design Principles to Align Authentic Learning Environments, Assessment, Students’ Approaches to Thinking and Learning Outcomes.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (5): 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802226502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochieng, P. A. 2009. “An Analysis of the Strengths and Limitation of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Paradigms.” Problems of Education in the 21st Century 13: 13.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, D. L. 2004. “Comparison of Weights in TOPSIS Models.” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 40 (7-8): 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2004.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, A., and D. Tilbury. 2013. Flexible Pedagogies: New Pedagogical Ideas. London.: Higher Education Academy.
   Google Scholar
• Seale, J. 2009. “Doing Student Voice Work in Higher Education: An Exploration of the Value of Participatory Methods.” British Educational Research Journal 36 (6): 995–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903342038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shih, H. S., H. J. Shyur, and E. S. Lee. 2007. “An Extension of TOPSIS for Group Decision Making.” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 45 (7–8): 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2006.03.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skoogh, A., B. Johansson, and E. J. Williams. 2012, December. “Constructive Alignment in Simulation Education.” In Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 1–11. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Thanassoulis, E., P. K. Dey, K. Petridis, I. Goniadis, and A. C. Georgiou. 2017. “Evaluating Higher Education Teaching Performance Using Combined Analytic Hierarchy Process and Data Envelopment Analysis.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 68 (4): 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-016-0165-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triantaphyllou, E. 2000. “Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods.” In Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, edited by Panos M. Pardalos and Donald Hearn, 5–21. Boston, MA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 1991. “Improving the Quality of Student Learning: The Influence of Learning Context and Student Approaches to Learning on Learning Outcomes.” Higher Education 22 (3): 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsinidou, M., V. Gerogiannis, and P. Fitsilis. 2010. “Evaluation of the Factors That Determine Quality in Higher Education: An Empirical Study.” Quality Assurance in Education 18 (3): 227–244.
   Google Scholar
• Tzeng, G. H., and J. J. Huang. 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Boca Raton: CRC press.
   Google Scholar
• Vanfretti, L., and M. Farrokhabadi. 2015. “Consensus-based Course Design and Implementation of Constructive Alignment Theory in a Power System Analysis Course.” European Journal of Engineering Education 40 (2): 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.944101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velasquez, M., and P. T. Hester. 2013. “An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods.” International Journal of Operations Research 10 (2): 56–66.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X., Y. Su, S. Cheung, E. Wong, and T. Kwong. 2013. “An Exploration of Biggs’ Constructive Alignment in Course Design and its Impact on Students’ Learning Approaches.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (4): 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.658018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wee, D., R. Kelly, J. Cattel, and M. Breunig. 2015. “Industry 4.0-how to Navigate Digitization of the Manufacturing Sector.” McKinsey & Company 58: 7–11.
   Google Scholar
• Wirth, R., and J. Hipp. 2000, April. “CRISP-DM: Towards a Standard Process Model for Data Mining.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Practical Applications of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, edited by Rakesh Agrawal and Paul Stolorz, 29–39. London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf-Wendel, L., K. Ward, and J. Kinzie. 2009. “A Tangled Web of Terms: The Overlap and Unique Contribution of Involvement, Engagement, and Integration to Understanding College Student Success.” Journal of College Student Development 50 (4): 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, P., and W. Cajkler. 2016. “A Participatory Approach to Lesson Study in Higher Education.” International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies 5 (1): 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-08-2015-0027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yüksel, F. Ş., A. N. Kayadelen, and F. Antmen. 2023. “A Systematic Literature Review on Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Higher Education.” International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education 10 (1): 12–28. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1104005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavadskas, E. K., Z. Turskis, and S. Kildienė. 2014. “State of art Surveys of Overviews on MCDM/MADM Methods.” Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20 (1): 165–179. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zopounidis, C., and M. Doumpos. 2002. “Multicriteria Classification and Sorting Methods: A Literature Review.” European Journal of Operational Research 138 (2): 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00243-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar