Investigating Practical Content Delivery Perspectives among
Engineering Students: Insights from Tertiary Institutions in South-
West Nigeria
NAJEEM O. ADELAKUN1, SAMUEL A. OMOLOLA2
1Department of Works and Services,
Federal College of Education, Iwo, Osun State,
NIGERIA
2Department of Electrical, Electronic Engineering,
The Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro, Ogun State,
NIGERIA
Abstract: - The lack of enthusiasm among students for practical classes is alarming. This prompted the need for
an investigation into the issues of engineering education, with a focus on practical content delivery
perspectives. An online questionnaire was completed by 325 respondents from tertiary institutions in southwest
Nigeria, resulting in responses. This ensured diversity in age, gender, field of study, and academic level,
providing detailed insights into the composition of the respondent pool. Notably, the majority of participants
(295) are male, with only 30 females, highlighting a gender disparity that is common in most tertiary
institutions. The distribution across fields and academic levels illustrates the diversity of engineering disciplines
and academic advancement. For instance, electrical/electronics engineering received 153 responses, with ND 1
students being the most represented. A comprehensive evaluation of practical session challenges revealed
widespread consensus on issues such as time constraints, insufficient equipment, and overcrowded classes. The
mean values revealed the relative importance of each criterion, providing a more comprehensive understanding
of respondents' viewpoints. The study concludes with innovative strategies for improving hands-on education
while addressing identified shortcomings. The recommendations include improved access to resources,
increased industry participation, modernization of equipment, standardized content delivery, technology-
enabled learning, faculty development, structured coaching, adaptive assessments, and regular curriculum
evaluations. These programs aim to promote continuous improvement and create a positive and productive
learning environment for engineering students. This study provides valuable insights and practical solutions for
enhancing the delivery of content, bridging gaps, and improving the quality of engineering education.
Key-Words: - Challenges, engineering students, laboratory, practical content delivery, student attitudes,
strategic initiatives.
Received: August 5, 2023. Revised: December 7, 2023. Accepted: February 11, 2024. Published: April 5, 2024.
1 Introduction
Globally, the educational environment has evolved
significantly, transitioning from a traditional teacher-
centric paradigm to one that emphasizes student-
centred approaches. This development, influenced by
the works of scholars such as [1], [2], aims to foster
independence, practical skills, and self-reliance in
students. Teaching engineering involves hands-on
tasks and technology, which help students understand
and use what they learn, [3]. Using technology makes
learning easier for students. The quality of practical
classes is crucial for students in engineering, [4], [5],
[6]. [7]. This approach, which supports practical
laboratory experience to improve theoretical
comprehension, corresponds with the most recent
advancements in education. According to [8], [9],
[10], [11], practical experiments not only help with
theoretical comprehension but also promote the
development of crucial abilities such as teamwork,
efficient communication, and the application of
theory in everyday circumstances.
Delivering practical knowledge is critical in
engineering education because it improves
comprehension of theoretical ideas and their practical
application, [12], [13]. Practical experiments are
essential not only for obtaining technical information
but also for establishing core abilities that will
prepare students for the ever-changing demands of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
17
Volume 21, 2024
future employment, [14], [15], [16]. This study
investigates how engineering students in the South-
Western part of Nigeria discern practical classes. By
focusing on this area, we can add to what we know
about teaching practical subjects in this independent
education system.
The practical knowledge gained in the
laboratories, will not only build their comprehensive
understanding of technology education but will also
give them insights into various teaching approaches.
According to reference [17], the major function of
the engineering profession is to examine data and
resources to serve humanity. This needs a deeper
knowledge than just theory learned in the classrooms.
Having practical experience is important, showing
the need for a mix of book smarts and practice in
engineering education, [18], [19].
Students nowadays have better access to useful
and informative resources via social media platforms,
which makes the process of learning and
understanding techniques much easier and more
interactive. This reinforces the importance of
technical and vocational education in preparing
engineering students for a better understanding of the
lessons learned and help in their career path after
graduation, [20]. Technical and Vocational Education
(TVE) plays a key role in filling the technical and
economic gap by giving students the right skills,
knowledge, and values for their jobs, [21], [22].
Practical work is crucial because it improves lab
skills, and knowledge, and helps students grasp
scientific theories better, [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].
This enhances students' learning performance,
promotes better understanding, and facilitates quicker
adaptation to the working environment during their
industrial attachment, [28], [29]. However, there are
reasons for concern because students' attitudes
toward practical classes are unsatisfactory. This
emphasizes the importance of studying engineering
students' perspectives on laboratory experiments to
enhance the theoretical knowledge provided in class.
The study by [30], investigates learner agency in
engineering students' problem-solving and project-
based learning (PBL). In Qatar, 39 students utilize
the Q approach to uncover diverse perceptions,
emphasizing intrapersonal, behavioral, and
environmental factors. The findings emphasize the
importance of teacher responsibilities and underscore
the need for more opportunities for learner agency in
PBL. The paper by [31], discusses the increasing
challenges associated with heterogeneous student
groups in higher education. It is recommended to
implement block teaching in engineering education
to improve flexibility, inclusivity, and enjoyment. A
poll has found positive student responses, indicating
that block teaching is an effective technique for
meeting the needs of diverse students. Recognizing
the evolving landscape of educational approaches,
the study conducted by [32], examines the
effectiveness of virtual experiments in enhancing
students' academic performance, practical skills, and
perspectives in a typical physics laboratory. Even
though hands-on experience enhances students'
learning outcomes, attitudes toward practical classes
among engineering students are worrisome. To tackle
this challenge, it is crucial to comprehend the
attitudes of engineering students towards laboratory
practicals and experiments. This study aims to
contribute to the understanding by examining the
practical content delivery perspectives of engineering
students at tertiary institutions in the southwest
region of Nigeria. By examining these perspectives,
the study aims to offer insights that can guide
instructional practices, enhance the learning
experience, and connect theoretical knowledge with
practical application in engineering.
2 Methodology
This study examines the challenges of engineering
education, focusing on practical content delivery
perspectives among engineering students using an
exploratory approach. A diverse sample of 325
participants from tertiary institutions in South-West
Nigeria was randomly selected to ensure
representation across various demographics,
including age, gender, field of study, and academic
level. Demographic variables were collected and
analyzed to gain insight into the composition of the
respondent pool, as well as the distribution of
participants across different fields of study and
academic levels. During practical sessions,
participants were asked to provide feedback on the
following challenges:
Time constraints
Inadequate availability of equipment for
experiments
Setting up of apparatus by the lecturer or
technologist, rather than by students
Overcrowded practical sessions
Insufficient time for submitting reports
Issues with the malfunction of
equipment/apparatus during practical
sessions
Intermittent electricity supply
Outdated equipment and facilities
This feedback was collected using a 5-point
Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to
"strongly disagree." The gathered data was
qualitatively analyzed to identify significant
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
18
Volume 21, 2024
challenges, providing insights for understanding and
addressing real-world learning situations in
engineering education. Throughout the research
process, strict ethical considerations were adhered to,
ensuring participant anonymity and informed
consent.
3 Results and Discussion
Table 1. Demographic Distribution of Respondents
Variable
Frequency (n = 325)
Age
112
165
39
9
Gender
295
30
Table 1 presents the demographic profile of 325
respondents, highlighting the distribution of age and
gender. The majority, 295, are male, while 30 are
female. In terms of age, 165 respondents are between
the ages of 20 and 25, while 112 are under 20 years
old. A smaller number, 39, falls within the 25-30
range, with only 9 exceeding 30 years of age.
Table 2. Distribution of Respondents by Field of
Study and Academic Level
Variable
Frequency
(n = 325)
Field of
Study
Agric & Bioenvironmental
Engineering
19
Civil Engineering
9
Computer Engineering
79
Electrical/Electronics
Engineering
153
Mechanical Engineering
47
Mechatronics Engineering
11
Welding and Fabrication
7
Level
ND 1
134
ND 2
123
HND 1
49
HND 2
19
Table 2 summarises the distribution of the 325
respondents according to their field of study and
academic level. Electrical/electronics engineering
accounts for the majority of respondents (153), with
computer engineering coming in second with 79.
Among the different academic levels, ND 1 has the
highest representation with 134 respondents,
followed by ND 2 with 123 respondents, HND 1 with
49 respondents, and HND 2 with 19 respondents.
This demonstrates the diversity of engineering
disciplines and educational progression.
Fig. 1: Age Distribution of Participants
Figure 1 illustrates the age distribution of
participants in the study. Approximately 34.46% of
the sample population is below 20 years old,
indicating a significant representation of younger
individuals. The largest segment, comprising
approximately 50.77% of participants, falls within
the 20–25 age bracket, highlighting the significant
presence of individuals in early adulthood.
Participants aged between 25 and 30 constitute about
12.00% of the total sample, while those above 30
years old represent approximately 2.77% of the
participants, indicating a smaller but still notable
demographic. This distribution highlights the
significant presence of individuals aged 20 to 25,
followed by those below 20, with relatively smaller
proportions in the older age groups.
Fig. 2: Gender Percentage of Respondents
Figure 2 displays the gender distribution of the
325 respondents. A substantial majority of 295 are
male, accounting for approximately 90.77% of the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
19
Volume 21, 2024
total. Females constitute a smaller proportion,
representing approximately 9.23% of all respondents.
The figure illustrates a gender imbalance in the
surveyed population, likely stemming from the low
representation of female engineering students.
Fig. 3: Percentage of Respondents Based on Field of
Study
Figure 3 visually illustrates the diversity in
respondents' fields of study. Electrical/Electronics
Engineering has the highest representation,
comprising 47.08%, followed by Computer
Engineering with 24.31%. Conversely, fields such as
agric & bioenvironmental engineering and civil
engineering show lower percentages. This figure
depicts the distribution of respondents across various
engineering disciplines.
Fig. 4: Chart showing the level of respondents
Figure 4 displays the distribution of respondents
across different academic levels. Notably, ND 1 has
the highest presence, with over 134 respondents,
followed by ND 2 with approximately 123. HND 1
has approximately 49 respondents, while HND 2 has
the lowest representation with around 19 responses.
The illustration depicts the distribution of
respondents across different academic levels.
Fig. 5: Percentage level of Respondents
Figure 5 shows the distribution of respondents
across academic levels. Notably, ND 1 is the largest
segment, accounting for 41.23%, followed by ND 2,
which accounts for approximately 37.85%. HND 1
accounts for the largest portion at 15.08%, while
HND 2 accounts for the smallest portion,
approximately 5.85%. The pie chart effectively
illustrates the distribution of respondents across
different academic levels.
Table 3 presents a comprehensive review of
challenges encountered during practical sessions,
using a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree). Key findings reveal
significant agreement on issues such as time
constraints, limited equipment availability, and
overcrowded sessions. Average scores demonstrate a
widespread acknowledgment of these challenges,
highlighting the necessity for enhancements in
practical learning environments. This data-driven
insight is consistent with the input from respondents,
emphasizing the need to address resource
availability, infrastructure challenges, and
instructional techniques to enhance the practical
learning experience for greater success.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
20
Volume 21, 2024
Table 3. Evaluation of Practical Session Challenges
S/N
Challenges/Scale
SA
A
U
D
SD
Agree
Disagree
1.
Time constraints
150
173
2
0
0
2.
Inadequate availability of
equipment for experiments
128
180
0
17
0
3.
Setting up of apparatus by the
lecturer or technologist, rather than
by students
132
159
0
27
7
4.
Overcrowded practical sessions
87
45
0
10
183
5.
Insufficient time for submitting
reports
162
141
0
0
22
6.
Issues with the malfunction of
equipment/apparatus during
practical sessions
35
120
0
92
78
7.
Intermittent electricity supply
191
125
0
9
0
8.
Outdated equipment and facilities
119
125
0
48
33
Average
125.5
133.5
0.25
25.38
40.38
Fig. 6: Mean Value of Respondents According to the Evaluation Criteria
Figure 6 shows the average values of respondents
based on the evaluation criteria. Notably, key figures
show that 150 respondents agree on time limitations,
128 on inadequate equipment, and 132 on lecturer-
led apparatus setup. Surprisingly, 183 respondents
oppose overloaded sessions. In addition, 162
respondents agree that there is inadequate time for
report submission, and 191 believe that erratic power
supply is a challenge. The image effectively portrays
group perceptions, highlighting the significance of
each factor in evaluating challenges during practical
sessions.
Fig. 7: Mean Value of Respondents According to
Likert Item
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
21
Volume 21, 2024
Figure 7 depicts respondents' perspectives on
practical session challenges, highlighting the
computed mean values of 125.5 for "strongly agree,"
133.5 for "agree," 0.25 for "undecided," 25.375 for
"disagree," and 40.375 for "strongly disagree." These
values capture the collective perspective, indicating
varied attitudes among respondents when addressing
the challenges encountered during practical sessions,
thus offering a comprehensive summary of the
general stance on the examined areas.
A practical example could be the formation of
collaborative relationships between engineering
institutions and industrial stakeholders. This
teamwork can help students get newer tools and
spaces for learning, giving them more chances
for hands-on practice. Also, adding tech-based
learning like electronic simulations to
engineering courses can offer more interactive
learning. Guiding courses and advice can help
bridge the gap between theory and practice,
improving students' academic and job growth.
This plan will get engineering graduates ready
for future challenges. The research results can
combine with artificial or computational
intelligence to create AI systems that make
learning more practical, change how students
learn, and give quick feedback to engineering
students, making their overall performance
better.
4 Strategic Initiatives for Advancing
Practical Education in Engineering
1. Modernization of Facilities and Equipment:
This helps technological advances by eliminating
the requirements for textbooks and giving
students innovative learner-centered tools for
hands-on learning, engineering laboratories,
equipment, and facilities.
2. Standardise Information Delivery Methods:
This precisely enumerates a set of guidelines for
technologists and lecturers to strictly obey
whenever they are imparting practical sessions to
the students of engineering and still keep it
understandable.
3. Consistent Curriculum Review and
Adaptation: organizing strategies for running
program tips that would as well motivate the
curriculum revision up to every season or even
once a two-year period using trend, technology,
and industry overhaul. As a result of their overall
view of existence, they feel confident in
unfamiliar settings, and their competency
increases as well.
4. Improved Access to Useful Resources:
Therefore, the design should certainly enable the
students to have easy access to the kind of
laboratories, techniques, and learning equipment
needed for hands-on training.
5. Technology-Enabled Learning
Implementation: To achieve thorough on-the-
spot learning, especially in a place devoid of real
physical resources, such as simulations, virtual
laboratories, and modern technologies.
6. Increased Industry Collaboration: To
synergize with industry partners by providing
industry-required projects, internships, and
practical training.
7. Adaptive Assessment Strategies: Make use of
assessment tools to give students insightful
feedback on a range of real-world problems so
they can identify their strong and weak points and
keep getting better.
8. Faculty Development Programmes: To train
and qualify faculty members effectively,
equipped with new methods and techniques to
instruct students.
9. Integrated Curriculum Development:
incorporating alternating or concurrent
knowledge of students with the practical and
theoretical parts of a curriculum is a solution.
10. Organised Guidance and Mentoring
Programs: The mentorship programs shall be put
in place to lead all students to have the necessary
expertise and the ability to grasp good
engineering principles during practical classes
5 Conclusion
The study used an exploratory method to investigate
engineering students' perceptions of practical
content delivery at tertiary institutions in southwest
Nigeria. The findings highlight concerns regarding
the practical learning conditions in engineering
education. The demographic profile indicates that the
respondents vary in terms of age, gender, field of
study, and academic level, with 90.77% male and
9.23% female participants, contributing to a more
comprehensive understanding of the population. The
comprehensive analysis of practical session
challenges revealed unanimous agreement on issues
such as time constraints, insufficient equipment
availability, and overcrowded sessions, with 80%
indicating time constraints as a major challenge.
Mean values capture the collective perspective,
emphasizing various emotions regarding practical
session challenges. The study identified strategic
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
22
Volume 21, 2024
approaches to enhance practical engineering
education. Recommendations include improved
access to resources, increased collaboration with
industry, modernized equipment and facilities,
standardized content delivery, technology-enabled
learning, faculty development, structured guidance,
mentorship programs, adaptive assessments, and
regular curriculum reviews. Despite several
drawbacks, such as gender imbalance, it provides a
solid foundation for future research. These findings
can help educators, institutions, and legislators make
changes that promote a more favorable and impactful
learning environment for engineering students.
Additionally, the practical applications of these
findings extend to improving overall educational
outcomes, fostering innovation, and equipping
engineering graduates with the skills needed to
address real-world challenges in the field.
References:
[1] Sshana, Z. J., & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2020).
Science practical work and its impact on
students’ science achievement. Journal of
Technology and Science Education, 10(2),
199-215. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.888
[2] Hubbard, K., Henri, D., Scott, G., Snelling,
H., & Roediger, E. (2024). Developing
undergraduate practical skills and
independence with ‘at home practical kits’.
International journal of science education, 1-
22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.23110
87
[3] Adelakun, N. O. (2022), Impact of Digital
Technology and The Need for Periodical
Review of Educational Curriculum in Nigeria
Tertiary Institutions, iKSP Journal of
Computer Science and Engineering, Vol. 2,
Issue 1, Pp. 14 19. Retrieved from
https://iksp.org/journals/index.php/ijcse/article
/view/176 (Accessed Date: February 6, 2024).
[4] Dewi, R. (2022). Discrepancy in Educational
Materials between Higher Education
Institutions and the Requirements of the
Professional Workforce in the Job
Market. QALAMUNA: Jurnal Pendidikan,
Sosial, dan Agama, 14(1), 329-348.
https://doi.org/10.37680/qalamuna.v14i1.4210
[5] Gorski, A. T., Ranf, E. D., Badea, D.,
Halmaghi, E. E., & Gorski, H. (2023).
Education for sustainability—Some
bibliometric insights. Sustainability, 15(20),
14916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014916
[6] Shomoye, M. A. Adelakun, N. O. Adebisi, K.
L. (2023). Exploring the Use of Electronic
Resources for Undergraduate Learning at the
National Open University of Nigeria in Kwara
State, WSEAS Transactions on Computers,
vol. 22, pp. 302-310,
2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.37394/23205.2023.
22.34
[7] Malhotra, R., Massoudi, M., & Jindal, R.
(2023). Shifting from traditional engineering
education towards competency-based
approach: The most recommended approach-
review. Education and Information
Technologies, 28(7), 9081-9111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.59849
8
[8] Bugtai, G., Batilaran, J., & Kilag, O. K.
(2024). Enhancing Science Education in
Middle Schools: A Systematic
Review. International Multidisciplinary
Journal of Research for Innovation,
Sustainability, and Excellence
(IMJRISE), 1(2), 7-13.
https://risejournals.org/index.php/imjrise/articl
e/view/32 (Accessed Date: February 8, 2024).
[9] Kandamby G. W. T. C. (2019), Effectiveness
of laboratory practical for Students’ Learning,
International Journal of Innovation Education
and Research, 7(3), 222-236
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol7.iss3.1359
[10] Krivickas, R. V. & Jonas Krivickas, J.
(2007), Laboratory Instruction in Engineering
Education, Global J. of Engng. Educ., 11(2),
191 196.
http://wiete.com.au/journals/GJEE/Publish/vol
11no2/Krivickas.pdf (Accessed Date:
February 2, 2024).
[11] Lemos, V. A. F., & Brunstein, J. (2023).
Fostering soft skills leadership through a
critical reflection approach. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 55(1), 143-156.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-01-2022-0001
[12] Golder, P. N., Dekimpe, M. G., An, J. T., van
Heerde, H. J., Kim, D. S., & Alba, J. W.
(2023). Learning from data: An empirics-first
approach to relevant knowledge
generation. Journal of Marketing, 87(3), 319-
336.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221129200
[13] Imjai, N., Aujirapongpan, S., & Yaacob, Z.
(2024). Impact of logical thinking skills and
digital literacy on Thailand's generation Z
accounting students’ internship effectiveness:
Role of self-learning capability. International
Journal of Educational Research Open, 6,
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
23
Volume 21, 2024
100329. 1-14
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100329
[14] Kopackova, H., Simonova, S., & Reimannova,
I. (2024). Digital transformation leaders
wanted: How to prepare students for the ever-
changing demands of the labor market. The
International Journal of Management
Education, 22(1), 100943.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100943
[15] Kilag, O. K., Miñoza, J., Comighud, E.,
Amontos, C., Damos, M., & Abendan, C. F.
(2023). Empowering Teachers: Integrating
Technology into Livelihood Education for a
Digital Future. Excellencia: International
Multi-disciplinary Journal of Education
(2994-9521), 1(1), 30-41. Retrieved from
https://multijournals.org/index.php/excellencia
-imje/article/view/3 (Accessed Date: February
22, 2024).
[16] Ndizeye, A., & Tabaro, C. (2023). Attitudes
towards English Medium of Instruction in
Engineering Courses in Rwanda
Polytechnic. Journal of Research in Higher
Education, 7(1). 40-70.
https://doi.org/10.24193/JRHE.2023.1.3
[17] Lyle D. F. & Albert J. R. (2005), The Role of
the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering
Education, Journal of Engineering Education,
94(1), 121-130 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2005.tb00833.x
[18] Kavak, Ş. (2023). The Evolution and Global
Significance of STEM Education in The 21st
Century. The Journal of International
Scientific Researches, 8(3), 410-415.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107972
[19] Rehman, Z. U. (2023). Trends and Challenges
of Technology-Enhanced Learning in
Geotechnical Engineering
Education. Sustainability, 15(10), 7972.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107972
[20] Adelakun, N. O., Olajide, M. B., Shomoye, M.
A., & Adebisi, K. L. (2023, August 22). The
significance of social media in shaping
students’ academic performance: challenges,
benefits, and quality assurance outlook.
Information Matters, 3(8), 1-10.
https://informationmatters.org/2023/08/the-
significance-of-social-media-in-shaping-
studentsacademic-performance-challenges-
benefits-and-quality-assurance-outlook
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4576302
(Accessed Date: February 12, 2024).
[21] Gyimah, N. (February 19, 2020). Assessment
of Technical and Vocational Education and
Training (TVET) on the development of the
World's Economy: Perspective of Africa, Asia
and Europe. Asia and Europe.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3541072
(Accessed Date: February 22, 2024).
[22] Okoye, K.R.E. (2010), Enhancing Quality in
Educational Practice and Instructional
Delivery by Teachers of Technology and
Vocational Education in Nigeria, African
Research Review. 4 (2) April, 355-369.
https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v4i2.58336
[23] Akhmadkulovna, E. N. (2024). Enhancing
Biology Education: The Integral Role of
Interactive Teaching Methods. International
Journal of Advance Scientific Research, 4(2),
113-121. https://doi.org/10.37547/ijasr-04-02-
18
[24] Wang, W. S., Cheng, Y. P., Lee, H. Y., Lin,
C. J., & Huang, Y. M. (2023). Impact of
anxiety and confidence in virtual
realitymediated learning transferred to
handson tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 39(4), 1368-1381.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12805
[25] Fadzil, H.M., & Saat, R.M. (2013).
Phenomenographic study of students’
manipulative skills During transition from
primary to secondary school. Sains Humanika,
63(2), 71-75.
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v63.2013
[26] Apeadido, S., Opoku-Mensah, D., & Mensah,
G. O. (2024). Enhancing Science Process
Skills and Academic Performance in Biology:
The Impact of Practical Work. Integrated
Science Education Journal, 5(1), 34-41.
https://cahaya-
ic.com/index.php/ISEJ/article/view/854
(Accessed Date: February 15, 2024).
[27] Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., Croker, S.,
& Härtig, H. (2016). What students learn from
handson activities. Journal of research in
science teaching, 53(7), 980-1002.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21320
[28] Enstroem, R., & Schmaltz, R. (2023). A
Juggler's manifesto: elevating creativity to
stay productive amid uncertainty. Journal of
Management Development, 42(5), 340-351.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-04-2023-0101
[29] Tsui, E., Dragicevic, N., Fan, I., & Cheng, M.
(2023). Co-creating curriculum with students,
teachers, and practitioners in a technology-
enhanced environment. Educational
technology research and development, 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10301-5
[30] Du, X., Lundberg, A., Ayari, M. A., Naji, K.
K., & Hawari, A. (2022). Examining
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
24
Volume 21, 2024
engineering students' perceptions of learner
agency enactment in problemand
projectbased learning using Q
methodology. Journal of Engineering
Education, 111(1), 111-136.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20430
[31] Bevilacqua, M., Milan, M., & Lilley, M.
(2022, March). Towards flexible delivery in
engineering education: students’ perception on
block teaching delivery. In 2022 IEEE Global
Engineering Education Conference
(EDUCON), Tunis, Tunisia. 1279-1284.
IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.
9766381
[32] Hamed, G., & Aljanazrah, A. (2020). The
effectiveness of using virtual experiments on
students’ learning in the general physics lab.
Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, 19, 976-995.
https://doi.org/10.28945/4668
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
The authors equally contributed in the present
research, at all stages from the formulation of the
problem to the final findings and solution.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_
US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI: 10.37394/232010.2024.21.3
Najeem O. Adelakun, Samuel Α. Omolola
E-ISSN: 2224-3410
25
Volume 21, 2024