MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413865858 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n4p58

Development and Validation of Instructional Model Using Project-Based and WebQuest Learning Approaches for Enhancing Innovation Ability of Electrical Engineering Students

2025· article· en· W4413865858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wang Jianqiu, Julamas Jansrisukot, Pattawan Narjaikaew

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Vocational Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWebQuestMathematics educationInstructional designPsychologyComputer scienceKnowledge managementPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although innovation is widely recognised as a cornerstone of contemporary engineering, empirical studies consistently show that undergraduate electrical‑engineering students lag behind industry expectations in rapidly translating interdisciplinary concepts into functional prototypes. These findings underscore the need to comprehensively reform teaching practices, curriculum structures, and assessment systems so as to cultivate prototype‑oriented innovation competence. This article aimed to develop and validate an instructional model using project-based and WebQuest learning approaches for enhancing innovation ability of Chinese electrical engineering students. The scope of the presentation focuses on the development process of the instructional model, with particular emphasis on establishing internal validity through expert review. This article aimed to develop and validate an instructional model that combines Project‑Based Learning and WebQuest approaches to enhance prototype‑oriented innovation ability among Chinese undergraduate electrical engineering students. Following a two‑phase research and development framework, Phase 1 conducted expert review to ensure content validity, and Phase 2 involved prototype refinement and pilot implementation. Instrument quality was high, and inter‑rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.76-0.90). Experts rated all seven components—principles, objectives, learning steps, instructor and learner roles, media resources, and evaluation—as highly appropriate, confirming the model’s conceptual soundness and practical applicability. In summary, the majority of experts found the various components of the instructional model to be appropriate at a high to highest level. The ICC values for all instructional model components indicated good reliability, demonstrating the dependability of the developed instructional model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.232
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducation and Vocational TrainingFrench-language works237,207