Helping engineering students become better learners
An action-state orientation-based intervention study
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22164662 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paul E Spector (0000-0002-6881-8496, University of South Florida), Chris S Ferekides (University of South Florida), Chris Ferekides (University of South Florida), Chung Seop Jeong (University of South Florida), Joel Howell (0000-0001-8082-4912, University of South Florida), İsmail Uysal (0000-0001-9821-2180, University of South Florida) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Publication date | 2026-03-17 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2504-284X • E-ISSN: 2504-284X |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/feduc.2026.1794863 |
| OpenAlex | W7138040436 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
Background An explanation for student academic underperformance is a breakdown in their cognitive control ability reflected in the concept of action-state orientation. Students who are state-oriented struggle to stay on task and be successful. We conducted two studies to evaluate the effectiveness of an action-state orientation training intervention by surveying students who received it. In Study 1,435 engineering students who participated in the training completed a survey containing measures of the four Kirkpatrick evaluation criteria: Reactions (finding the training of value), Knowledge (a test on the material covered), Behavior (the use of 10 study strategies presented in the training), and Outcomes (whether students found the strategies effective and would continue using them). Study 2 surveyed 295 engineering students and grouped them according to whether they had participated in the training or not. Results Results of Study 1 provided evidence of the effectiveness for all four criteria. Most notably, more than half reporting using 4 or more strategies and 84.7% found the strategies helpful. In Study 2, there was no evidence for greater retention of knowledge for students who did versus those who did not experience the training as there was a nonsignificant difference in scores on a knowledge test. Those experiencing the intervention, however, scored significantly higher in the number of strategies used, and in the use of six of the individual strategies. Conclusion These studies provided evidence for effectiveness of action-state orientation training in that students adopted the strategies covered, found them helpful, and planned to continue using them
Cognition · Engineering education · Significant difference · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods · Science Education and Pedagogy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |