Research on a Project-Driven Teaching Model for Automation Majors Oriented Toward Industry-Education Integration
With the deepening of industry-education integration policies, the traditional teaching model in automation majors has revealed significant shortcomings. The disconnection between theory and practice makes it difficult for students to transform knowledge into practical abilities, while the mismatch between talent supply and industrial demand increases recruitment costs for enterprises. To address these problems, this paper focuses on the construction and implementation of a project-driven teaching model. From the perspectives of core element design, phased implementation pathways, and multi-dimensional support mechanisms, a systematic study is carried out. The paper elaborates on the logic behind building a stepwise project system, a modular curriculum, a dual-mentor mechanism, and a three-level practice platform, while also analyzing in depth the supporting roles of collaborative school-enterprise management, faculty mobility, and equipment sharing. The study ultimately forms an operable teaching reform scheme that supports the deep integration of industry and education in automation, improves the quality of talent cultivation, and promotes the coordinated upgrading of professional education and industrial development, thereby helping to resolve the fundamental contradiction between current talent cultivation and industrial demand.
References
- Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education, 58, 563–584.
- McCabe, A., & O’Connor, U. (2014). Student-centred learning: The role and responsibility of the lecturer. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 350–359.
- Fomunyam, K. G. (2019). Education and the fourth industrial revolution: Challenges and possibilities for engineering education. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 10(8), 271–284.
- Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education. Jossey-Bass.
- Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
- Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.
- Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer Publishing.
- Jevons, H. S. (1931). The second industrial revolution. The Economic Journal, 41(161), 1–18.
- Masoomi, B., Sahebi, I. G., Ghobakhloo, M., & Mosayebi, A. (2023). Do industry 5.0 advantages address the sustainable development challenges of the renewable energy supply chain? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 43, 94–112.
- Festiawan, R., Sumanto, E., Febriani, A. R., Permadi, A. A., Arifin, Z., Utomo, A. W., Nugroho, W. A., & Pratama, K. W. (2024). The hybrid learning system with project based learning: Can it increase creative thinking skill and learning motivation in physical education learning? Retos, (56), 1009–1015.
- Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. Routledge.