Abstract

This study introduces and validates an integrated learning framework that combines Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education, Competency-Based Education, and Experiential Learning Theory to bridge the gap between theory and practice in electrical–electronic engineering programs in Vietnam. Implemented through a design-based research approach in an Automatic Control Engineering course, the framework was applied across several technical universities using iterative cycles of design, intervention, and reflection. Open-source digital simulations, project-based learning tasks, and ABET-aligned competency assessments were incorporated to ensure feasibility, rigor, and alignment with international standards in resource-constrained environments. Quantitative findings from pre–post surveys (N = 250) and comparative analyses with a control group (N = 247) revealed significant gains in five competency domains—technical problem-solving, systems thinking, teamwork and technical communication, digital simulation, and presentation and technical argumentation—with effect sizes ranging from 1.29 to 1.56, indicating large to very large impacts. Complementary qualitative evidence highlighted stronger theory–practice integration, higher engagement, increased motivation, and greater learner confidence when applying theoretical concepts to authentic engineering tasks. Overall, the results indicate that the integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics-Competency-Based Education- Experiential Learning Theory framework offers a cost-effective, scalable, and pedagogically robust model for strengthening engineering competencies in low-resource settings, providing actionable implications for curriculum designers, instructors, and policymakers seeking to align engineering education with contemporary international quality and accreditation standards.  

Keywords

References

• Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology [ABET]. (2021). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2022–2023. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2022-2023/
• Alves, A. C., Sousa, R. M., Fernandes, S., Cardoso, E., Carvalho, M. A., Figueiredo, J., & Pereira, R. M. S. (2016). Teacher’s experiences in PBL: Implications for practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1023782
• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
• Besterfield-Sacre, M., Gerchak, J., Lyons, M., Shuman, L. J., & Wolfe, H. (2004). Scoring concept maps: An integrated rubric for assessing engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00793.x
• Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
• Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20040
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
• Couso, D., & Simarro, C. (2020). STEM education through the epistemological lens: Unveiling the challenge of STEM transdisciplinarity. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 17–28). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381-3
• Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05561-9
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Cubacub, P. D. C., & Jimenez, E. C. (2025). The role of blended learning in enhancing student engagement: Evidence from high schools in Micronesia. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 6(3), 33074. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202533074
• Dereje, E. W. (2023). The effect of inquiry-based technology integration on conceptual and procedural geometry knowledge of preservice mathematics teachers. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 5(4), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202321592
• Eshaq, H. A. (2024). The effect of using STEM education on students’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 8(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.202423476
• Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. Jossey-Bass.
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
• Goode, G. S., & MacGillivray, L. (2023). The construction of systems thinking pedagogy during a professional development institute. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(4), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202318879
• Gürsoy, K., Bebek, G., & Bülbül, S. (2023). The effect of STEM education practices on academic achievement and scientific process skills: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 5(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202324071
• Gyasi, J. F., Zheng, L., & Zhou, Y. (2021). Perusing the past to propel the future: A systematic review of STEM learning activity based on activity theory. Sustainability, 13(16), 8828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168828
• Hashim, M., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2022). Higher education strategy in digital transformation. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3171–3195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10739-1
• Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
• Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
• Impagliazzo, J., & Xu, X. (2024). A competency-based transformation in computing and engineering education in the digital era. Frontiers in Digital Education, 1, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44366-024-0025-8
• Insorio, A. O. (2024). Integrating differentiated instruction to improve STEM students’ mathematical engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 5(2), 27678. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202427678
• Ismail, M. R., Hashim, M. A., & Ismail, A. (2022). A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: Trends, gaps and barriers. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00319-7
• Kamp, A. (2016). Engineering education in the rapidly changing world: Rethinking the vision for higher engineering education. TU Delft Open. https://www.4tu.nl/cee/publications/vision-2016.pdf
• Karakaya, F., & Yılmaz, M. (2022). Teachers’ views on assessment and evaluation methods in STEM education: A science course example. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.202213526
• Kelley, T. R. (2019). Boundary crossing and boundary objects in engineering design-based STEM integration. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.509352
• Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). The experiential educator: Principles and practices of experiential learning. Experience Based Learning Systems.
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
• Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. ABET. https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/EngineeringChange-executive-summary.pdf
• Le, H. C., Nguyen, V. H., & Nguyen, T. L. (2023). Integrated STEM approaches and associated outcomes of K–12 student learning: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(3), 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030297
• Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00213-8
• McGourty, J., Sebastian, C., & Swart, W. (1998). Developing a comprehensive assessment program for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 355–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00366.x
• McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
• Mulder, M. (2017). Competence-based vocational and professional education: Bridging the worlds of work and education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4
• National Research Council [NRC] (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13158
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning compass 2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/
• Olds, B. M., Moskal, B. M., & Miller, R. L. (2005). Assessment in engineering education: Evolution, approaches and future collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00826.x
• Passow, H. J., & Passow, C. H. (2017). What competencies should undergraduate engineering programs emphasize? A systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 475–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20146
• Patil, A., & Codner, G. (2007). Accreditation of engineering education: Review, observations and proposal for global accreditation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 639–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790701520664
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
• Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00836.x
• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
• Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. In W. Andrew, L. Heather, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 5–15). Purdue University Press.
• Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET ‘professional skills’—Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00828.x
• Simarro, C., & Couso, D. (2021). Engineering practices as a framework for STEM education: A proposal based on epistemic nuances. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00310-2
• Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 6, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1
• Tait, A., & Knight, B. (2018). The competency-based education landscape. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(4), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509604
• Tene, T. E., Gaeta, E., & Gonzalez, C. S. (2024). Integrating immersive technologies with STEM education: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1410163. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1410163
• Tsai, C.-C., Wu, Y.-T., & Hsu, P.-C. (2022). An importance–performance analysis of teachers’ perception of STEM engineering design education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, 11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01633-5
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2021). Competency-based approach to technical and vocational education and training in Africa: Synthesis report. IIEP–UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379870
• Uzun, S., & Şen, N. (2023). The effects of a STEM-based intervention on middle school students’ science achievement and learning motivation. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(1), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202319315
• Zaher, A. A., & Damaj, I. W. (2018). Extending STEM education to engineering programs at the undergraduate college level. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 8(3), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v8i3.8402

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.