TY  - JOUR
T1  - Teaching Methods in Engineering Education: A Case Study in Thailand
AU - Punyabukkana, Proadpran AU - Orisoon, Atikhun AU - Gangwanpongpun, Krit AU - Ousirimaneechai, Nattapong AU - Sratthatad, Navee AU - Saereeporncharenkul, Nunnapas AU - Intasen, Phadtanaporn AU - Aukkarapuntouch, Phattanun AU - Kasuwan, Suvijai AU - Ananthothai, Teerakorn AU - Jaktheerangkoon, Sanchai 
JO  - The Social Sciences
VL  - 12
IS  - 1
SP  - 89
EP  - 95
PY  - 2017
DA  - 2001/08/19
SN  - 1818-5800
DO  - sscience.2017.89.95
UR  - https://makhillpublications.co/view-article.php?doi=sscience.2017.89.95
KW  - Engineering education
KW  -teaching methods
KW  -active learning
KW  -flipped classroom
KW  -course ville LMS
AB  - Teaching engineering students to learn “why” is as important as to learn “what”. To do so there are
several teaching methods that teachers may use to achieve this goal. Among several modern teaching methods
such as active classroom, flipped classroom, problem-based learning and more, some or all may fit the nature
of engineering disciplines. Therefore this study aims at understanding the student’s point of view. We
surveyed almost 400 undergraduate students at the Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand to assess their views on different types of teaching methods and the effect of these methods
on their learning outcome. The results show that flipped classroom is more difficult and less preferable than
active learning and traditional lecture. In contrast, active learning is the most preferable, interesting and least
difficult teaching method among students. Whereas among all technologies Course Ville LMS has the highest
rate in term of both utilization and eligibility in active classroom.
ER  -