Enhancing Learning Outcomes and Engineering Self-Efficacy in Digital Logic Design through Embedded Formative Assessment: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Traditional digital logic design courses rely heavily on lecture-dominated instruction with terminal examinations, providing little opportunity for timely formative feedback or the development of learner self-efficacy. This study investigated whether a blended instructional model incorporating embedded formative assessment—delivered through weekly low-stakes online quizzes, structured pre-lab prediction tasks, and instructor-facilitated peer critique sessions—could improve learning outcomes and self-efficacy relative to conventional instruction. A quasi-experimental study was conducted across three cohorts (n = 176) over one academic year at a research-intensive university in China. Outcome measures included a validated Digital Logic Achievement Test (DLAT), the Domain-Specific Self-Efficacy scale (DSSE), and final course grades. The blended cohort significantly outperformed controls on the DLAT post-test (Cohen’s d = 0.54) and on the DSSE (d = 0.67), with a substantially lower failure rate (4.8% vs. 13.2%). Thematic analysis of post-course interviews (n = 18) identified timely corrective feedback and progressive task difficulty as the principal mechanisms supporting both knowledge consolidation and self-efficacy growth. These findings suggest that moderate structural modifications to assessment frequency and delivery can meaningfully improve conceptual learning and motivational engagement in digital logic courses.
[1] Mansouri M, 2026, Active Learning in Engineering Education: A Case Study from a Digital Logic Design course. Applied Sciences, 16(6): 2880. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062880
[2] Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, et al., 2020, Active Learning Narrows Achievement Gaps for Underrepresented Students in Undergraduate Science, Technology, engineering, and Math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12): 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
[3] Sweller J, 2023, The Development of Cognitive Load Theory: Replication Crises and Incorporation of Other Theories Can Lead to Theory Expansion. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4): 95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09817-2
[4] Morris R, Perry T, Wardle L, 2021, Formative Assessment and Feedback for Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Review of Education, 9(3): e3292. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3292
[5] Yang C, Luo L, Vadillo MA, et al., 2021, Testing (Quizzing) Boosts Classroom Learning: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 147(4): 399–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309
[6] Agarwal PK, Nunes LD, Blunt JR, 2021, Retrieval Practice Consistently Benefits Student Learning: A Systematic Review of Applied Research in Schools and Classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4): 1409–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9
[7] Wisniewski B, Zierer K, Hattie J, 2020, The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
[8] McDermott KB, 2021, Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 72: 609–633. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051019
[9] Bandura A, 1997, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman, New York.
[10] Schunk DH, DiBenedetto MK, 2020, Motivation and Social Cognitive Theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60: 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
[11] Chen X-Y, Usher EL, Roeder M, et al., 2023, Mastery, Models, Messengers, and Mixed Emotions: Examining the Development of Engineering Self-Efficacy by gender. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(1): 64–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20494
[12] Lee Y-K, Freer E, Robinson KA, et al., 2022, The Multiplicative Function of Expectancy and Value in Predicting Engineering Students’ Choice, Persistence, and Performance. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(3): 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20456
[13] Cao W, 2023, A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Blended Learning on Performance, Attitude, Achievement, and Engagement Across Different Countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 14: 1212056. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1212056
[14] Double KS, McGrane JA, Hopfenbeck TN, 2020, The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Control Group Studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2): 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
[15] Ting FST, Shroff RH, Lam WH, et al., 2022, A Meta-Analysis of Studies on the Effects of Active Learning on Asian Students’ Performance in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Subjects. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32(3): 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00661-6
[16] Nguyen KA, Borrego M, Finelli CJ, et al., 2021, Instructor Strategies to Aid Implementation of Active Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of STEM Education, 8: 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7
[17] Fan H, Xie H, Feng Q, et al., 2022, Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning: Experiences and Reflections from Teaching Electronic Engineering in China. IEEE Transactions on Education, 66(1): 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2022.3186184
[18] Corso Pinzón AF, Ramírez-Echeverry JJ, Restrepo-Calle F, 2024, Automated Grading Software Tool with Feedback Process to Support Learning of Hardware Description Languages. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 19: 015. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2024.19015
[19] Tian Y, Yu J, 2026, Innovation and Teaching Reform of the Talent Training Mode in Integrated Circuit Science and Engineering under the Background of New Engineering: A Case Study of North University of China. Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 10(7): 1–9.
[20] Sabanwar V, Trimukhe P, Gudla A, et al., 2023, Improving Learning Experience to Teach FPGA Design at Scale. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Compute Conference (COMPUTE 2023). ACM, New York, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3627217.3627225
[21] Miller MD, Linn RL, Gronlund NE, 2013, Measurement and Assessment in Teaching (11th edn). Pearson, Boston.
[22] Pajares F, Miller MD, 1994, Role of Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept Beliefs in Mathematical Problem Solving: A Path Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2): 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193
[23] Braun V, Clarke V, 2022, Conceptual and Design Thinking for Thematic Analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196
[24] Koriat A, Bjork RA, 2005, Illusions of Competence in Monitoring One’s Knowledge During Study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2): 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.187
[25] Brod G, Hasselhorn M, Bunge SA, 2018, When Generating a Prediction Boosts Learning: The Element of Surprise. Learning and Instruction, 55: 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.013
[26] Chi MTH, Wylie R, 2014, The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4): 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
[27] Yu Q, Yu K, Li B, Wang Q, 2023, Effectiveness of Blended Learning on Students’ Learning Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 57(3): 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2264984
