Reconstruction and Practice of Hierarchical Digital Logic Experiment System for Cultivating the Ability to Solve Complex Engineering Problems
This research aims to reorganize the digital logic experiment-based teaching framework on the premise of fostering the ability of students to solve complex engineering problems. The reform is driven by three deep-seated challenges: the large difference between the cognitive abilities of students, the rigidity of verification-only exercises, and the prohibitive cost of trial-and-error with purely physical experimentation. In the new four-module incremental arrangement of the verification-design-comprehensive layers, mechanical wiring of preset diagrams is replaced by having students face a real trade-off when they choose devices. A synergy between the virtual and the real is achieved through a virtual-real loop, i.e., simulation comes first, followed by hardware. Evaluation was redesigned in parallel. Based on the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) by Vygotsky, a three-level optional grading system was designed. It works in combination with a “preparation -operation-summary” trilogy rubric and directs the evaluative focus onto pre-class scheme planning and fault-isolation behavior during offline experimentation. The evaluation initiative is then shifted to the students themselves, who are thereby motivated intrinsically. Three years of teaching experience obtained at Lingnan Normal University confirms the effectiveness of the reform. The students moved beyond mechanical assembly and developed substantial skills in the field of system-level architecture design and multi-objective trade-off reasoning.
[1] Dan Z, Samuel M, Tan SY, 2025, Emerging Engineering Education in China. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 15(2): 153–164. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v15i2.53627
[2] Seguí Gil, Lucía G, Martínez M, 2023, The Challenge of Developing and Assessing Transversal Competences in Higher Education Engineering Courses. RiuNet (Politechnical University of Valencia), 39(1): 2–13.
[3] Costley C, 2007, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Investigación, 83(6): 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.10.026
[4] Angulo I, Garcia-Zubia J, Orduna P, et al., 2019, Integral Remote Laboratory for Programmable Logic. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/expat.2019.8876561
[5] Qadir J, Taha AEM, Yau KLA, et al., 2020, Leveraging the Force of Formative Assessment & Feedback for Effective Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/a4d5q
[6] Hanley D, 2020, Initial Implementation of Active Learning Strategies in Large, Lecture STEM Courses: Lessons Learned from a Multi-Institutional, Interdisciplinary STEM Faculty Development Program. International Journal of STEM Education, 2020(7): 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0203-2
[7] Jiménez‐Hernández EM, Oktaba H, Díaz‐Barriga F, et al., 2020, Using Web‐based Gamified Software to Learn Boolean Algebra Simplification in a Blended Learning Setting. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2020(28): 1591–1611. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22335
[8] Yan FG, Ji XY, Lian H, 2024, Research on the Design and Model of Ideological and Political Teaching of the “Digital Circuit and Logic Design” Course. SHS Web of Conferences, 2024, 187: 01019. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418701019
[9] Foss M, Liu Y, 2021, Creating Solutions through Project-based and Experiential Learning: A Case Study of the Concept Center. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 37(6): 1630–1642.
[10] Guo WJ, Yang ZM, 2024, Teaching Reform and Exploration of Digital Logic Course under the Background of Emerging Engineering Education. Industry and Information Technology Education, 2024(1): 58–62.
[11] Tai J, Ajjawi R, Boud D, et al., 2018, Developing Evaluative Judgement: Enabling Students to Make Decisions about the Quality of Work. Higher Education,76(3): 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
[12] Salehi S, Burkholder E, Lepage G P, et al., 2019, Demographic Gaps or Preparation Gaps?: The Large Impact of Incoming Preparation on Performance of Students in Introductory Physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 2019(15): 2. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020114
[13] Maskos K, Schulz A, Oeksuez SS, et al., 2025, Formative Assessment in Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review. ZDM — Mathematics Education, 57(4): 679–693.
[14] Liu H, Zhu Y, 2020, Research on the Construction of Teaching Quality Evaluation System. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2020(1673): 012055. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1673/1/012055
[15] Tsoi YM, Anzovino EM, Erickson HA, et al., 2019, Variations in Implementation of Specifications Grading in STEM Courses. Georgia Journal of Science, 2019(77): 2.
[16] Chen J, Kolmos A, Du X, 2021, Forms of Implementation and Challenges of PBL in Engineering Education: A Review of Literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1): 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1718615
[17] Radhamani R, Kumar D, Nizar N, et al., 2021, What Virtual Laboratory Usage Tells us about Laboratory Skill Education Pre-and post-COVID-19: Focus on Usage, Behavior, Intention and Adoption. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6): 7477–7495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10583-3
[18] Bairaktarova D, Woodcock A, 2017, Engineering Student’s Ethical Awareness and Behavior: A New Motivational Model. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2017(23): 1129–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9814-x
[19] Smeplass E, 2025, Nurturing Inclusivity and Professional Growth among Vocational Teachers through Communities of Practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 33(3): 785–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2023.2268108
[20] Walls C, 2024, Enhancing Construction Management Education Through Collaborative Learning. Creative Education, 15(9): 1982–1990. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2024.159121
