1. Introduction
Since the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council officially introduced the term “professional degree” in 1996, China’s postgraduate education has formed a postgraduate education system in which “academic” and “professional” degrees coexist. A “professional degree” is a type of degree set up to meet the needs of specific vocational fields in society and educate high-level application-oriented professionals with clear vocational and application orientations and strong professional abilities and qualities capable of engaging in practical work creatively [1]. The educational goal of professional degree graduate students is to educate application-oriented professionals who have certain theoretical research skills and abilities and can adapt to the needs of specific industries and fields [2].
In September 2020, the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council and the Ministry of Education jointly released the Program for the Development of Professional Degree Graduate Education (2020–2025), marking a new stage of development of professional degree graduate education in China. It is stated in the program that professional degree graduate education mainly focuses on the needs of specific vocational fields in society and educates high-level application-oriented professionals with strong professional abilities and professionalism who can creatively engage in practical work.
At a time when the division of labor in society is becoming increasingly refined and specialized, professional degree graduate education has the unique advantage of meeting the diversified needs of professionals [3]. In November 2021, the Ministry of Education in China issued the Notice of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council on the List of Additional Doctoral and Master’s Degree Authorization Points to be Audited in 2020. In the results of the degree authorization audit, more than 1500 new master’s degree authorization points were added, of which, 1115 were professional degrees, accounting for more than 70%. In 2021, the number of enrollments of professional degree master’s students accounted for 60.8% of the total enrollment of master’s students. Among them, the number of enrollments of professional degree master’s students in engineering ranked first, becoming the largest and widest type of professional degree education in China.
At present, some universities of applied sciences in China adopt university–industry collaboration for postgraduate education. Students raise problems in enterprise practice, discover solutions in practice and theoretical study, and finally test research results in practice, which is an exploration and attempt to educate professional degree graduate students in universities of applied sciences [4,5]. This mode takes engineering students through the whole process of postgraduate education and emphasizes the full coverage of engineering practice and uninterrupted engineering training [6]. In their first year, students receive centralized theoretical study at university, and then go to enterprises directly to get familiar with relevant technologies and complete a 10–12 month internship under the guidance of enterprise supervisors. In their second year, students return to university to continue studying theoretical knowledge and carry out research under the guidance of university supervisors in combination with the projects carried out during the internship in enterprises. In their third year, students put research results into engineering practice. Students find and ask questions in real environments of engineering practice sites, determine research plans, form research topics, and develop feasible solutions or designs for solving problems under the dual guidance of enterprise supervisors and university supervisors [7].
In this paper, Section 2 provides a comprehensive literature review followed by Section 3, which outlines the methodology adopted for our study. In Section 4, we present the results of our analysis, including the characteristics of the sample, descriptive statistics, and linear regression analysis. Finally, we discuss the findings and draw conclusions based on the results obtained.
2. Literature Review
2.1. University–Business Cooperation
University–business cooperation, also known as industry–academia collaboration, is an area of research that has gained increasing attention in recent years [8]. The main objective of such cooperation is to facilitate knowledge transfer between universities and businesses, leading to the development of innovative products and services [9,10].
Research in this area has identified a number of key factors that can facilitate or hinder successful university–business cooperation [11,12]. For example, trust between the two parties, effective communication, and a shared understanding of goals are seen as important factors that can contribute to successful collaborations [13]. On the other hand, differences in organizational culture, conflicting priorities, and intellectual property issues are identified as potential barriers to collaboration [14].
Studies have also examined the different forms that university–business cooperation can take, including joint research projects, licensing agreements, and industry-sponsored research [15,16]. The effectiveness of these different forms of collaboration varies depending on factors such as the type of industry, the nature of the research, and the goals of the collaboration [16].
The current research suggests that university–business cooperation can be a valuable means of promoting innovation and economic development, particularly in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields [17]. However, it also highlights the importance of effective communication, trust, and a shared vision in order to realize the full potential of such collaborations [18].
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the benefits of university–business cooperation for both academic and business communities [19,20]. For universities, such collaborations can provide access to new research opportunities, funding, and industry expertise, as well as opportunities to apply research in practical settings. For businesses, university partnerships can provide access to cutting-edge research and talent as well as the opportunity to collaborate with leading experts in their field.
As a result, there has been an increasing emphasis on fostering university–business collaboration, with initiatives such as industry–academic consortia, joint research centers, and technology transfer offices [20]. These initiatives aim to facilitate partnerships between universities and businesses, providing a framework for collaboration and ensuring that research outcomes are relevant and applicable to industry needs.
However, while the potential benefits of university–business cooperation are clear, there are also challenges to be overcome. For example, there can be cultural differences between academic and business environments, as well as differences in the pace of decision-making and approaches to risk. In addition, the ownership of intellectual property and the sharing of benefits from collaborative projects can be complex issues that require careful negotiation [21]. To address these challenges, there is a need for effective communication and clear understanding of the objectives and expectations of all parties involved. This includes establishing effective governance structures, identifying shared goals, and ensuring that the benefits of collaboration are fairly distributed.
In conclusion, university–business cooperation is an area of research that is rapidly evolving and has the potential to drive innovation and economic growth. While there are challenges to be overcome, the benefits of collaboration between universities and businesses are clear, and initiatives to facilitate such collaborations are likely to continue to grow in importance in the coming years.
2.2. Integration of Industry and Education
Integration of industry and education is an area of research that focuses on the collaboration between educational institutions and industry to better align education with the needs of the workforce [22]. This approach emphasizes practical training and real-world experiences, which can enhance the employability and job readiness of graduates [23].
Research in this area has identified several key themes that are important for the effective integration of industry and education [24,25]. One key theme is the need for educational institutions to engage with industry partners to develop relevant curricula and training programs. This includes partnerships with businesses, government agencies, and industry associations to ensure that graduates have the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the job market. Another important theme is the need to provide students with opportunities for experiential learning, such as internships, apprenticeships, and work-integrated learning programs. These opportunities allow students to gain practical experience and develop industry-specific skills, which can improve their employability and make them more attractive to employers [26].
Research has also examined the benefits and challenges of industry and education integration [27,28]. Some of the benefits include improved student employability, better alignment of educational programs with industry needs, and increased innovation and productivity within industry. However, challenges include funding and resource constraints, differences in organizational cultures and priorities, and concerns around academic autonomy and independence [29].
The current research suggests that the integration of industry and education can be an effective way to improve student employability and align education with industry needs [30]. However, effective collaboration between educational institutions and industry partners requires careful planning and coordination, as well as ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the partnership remains effective and sustainable over time [31].
To further promote the integration of industry and education, many educational institutions have implemented various programs and initiatives aimed at strengthening ties with industry partners [32]. For example, some universities have established industry advisory boards, which provide input into curriculum developments and help to identify opportunities for collaborations with industry. Other institutions have created work-integrated learning programs, which offer students opportunities to gain practical experience through internships, co-op placements, and other forms of experiential learning.
Moreover, some countries have implemented policies and programs aimed at promoting the integration of industry and education at a national level [33]. For instance, Germany has a long-standing tradition of apprenticeships, which allow students to combine vocational training with on-the-job learning, providing a pathway to employment in the manufacturing and engineering sectors. Meanwhile, countries such as Singapore and Australia have established government-funded programs to encourage closer collaboration between educational institutions and industry.
Despite the progress made in this area, challenges still remain. For instance, it can be difficult for educational institutions to maintain effective relationships with industry partners, particularly when there are differences in priorities or goals [34]. There may also be challenges around the sharing of intellectual property and the ownership of research outcomes, which can impact the sustainability of collaborative relationships [35,36].
In conclusion, the integration of industry and education is a rapidly evolving area of research that has the potential to improve student employability and drive economic growth [37,38]. While there are challenges to be overcome, effective collaboration between educational institutions and industry partners can help to ensure that graduates are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to meet the needs of the workforce [39]. As such, it is likely that initiatives aimed at promoting the integration of industry and education will continue to be an important focus for research and policy in the years to come.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design
User satisfaction is a measure that evaluates a customer’s experience of the service environment, originating from business management [40,41]. This study uses student satisfaction as an indicator to gauge their actual feelings about the educational services provided by universities and enterprise. University–business cooperation and integration of industry and education are specific manifestations of university–industry collaboration. University–industry collaboration is the central theme that runs through postgraduate education. However, there is a lack of surveys on the satisfaction of professional degree postgraduates.
It is essential to investigate student satisfaction with universities, enterprises, the practice process, and other aspects of engineering practice to gain a better understanding of their perspective as participants in engineering practice activities [42]. Such investigations hold great practical significance for improving the quality of postgraduate education and ensuring that students are satisfied with the services provided.
The survey was conducted using a combination of interviews and online questionnaires. Initially, we visited and conducted research on relevant enterprise practice bases and interviewed teachers and enterprise supervisors. Based on this information, the questionnaire was developed after expert consultation and multiple revisions to ensure that it effectively measured student satisfaction regarding university–industry collaboration.
3.2. Sampling Technique and Measurement Instruments
To ensure the reliability of the research data, we conducted a questionnaire survey in the first half of 2022 using a sample of professional degree graduate students from a university of applied sciences. The survey used stratified random sampling, and 290 valid questionnaires were collected from current graduate students and graduates of different genders and ages. The sample distribution was reasonable, which allowed for a more effective evaluation of the enterprise practice activities and provided the basis for making recommendations.
We developed the “Survey on Professional Degree Graduate Students’ Satisfaction with Enterprise Practice” as a measurement tool and revised it after conducting trial research. The questionnaire adopted a self-assessment approach to evaluate the content of enterprise teaching, university teaching, university supervisors, and enterprise supervisors. The questionnaire used a Likert scale for measurement, and after a reliability test, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.896, indicating high internal consistency reliability of the scale.
4. Results
As per the research design, the questionnaire data were analyzed using statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and multiple regression analysis.
4.1. Characteristics of the Sample
Table 1 displays initial sample statistics, categorized according to student gender, grade, and age. Of the sample, 153 students were male (52.8%) and 137 were female (47.2%). The distribution of student grades was as follows: 113 1st-year graduate students (39.0%), 77 2nd-year students (26.6%), 50 3rd-year graduate students (17.2%), and 50 graduated postgraduate students (17.2%). As for age distribution, 1 student (0.4%) was under 20 years old, 183 students (63.1%) were between 20 and 25, 94 students (32.4%) were between 26 and 30, and 12 students (4.1%) were over 30.
4.2. Descriptive Statistics
The questionnaire comprised 11 questions that evaluated the satisfaction of professional degree students regarding enterprise practice. Results indicated that students were either very satisfied or relatively satisfied with 10 of the aspects (with a mean value ranging from 3.679 to 4.321) (see Table 2). The highest satisfaction level was recorded for the question of “Guidance from university supervisors”. However, students were dissatisfied with the relevance of university-based theoretical study and enterprise practice (with a mean value of 2.41). This indicates that while professional degree students generally acknowledge the effectiveness of enterprise practice, the relevance of theoretical learning to enterprise practice requires further enhancement.
University–industry collaboration offers students a realistic corporate environment, complete with engineering projects and implementation sites, wherein they are treated as full-fledged employees of companies and perform practical tasks according to their companies’ regulations and management styles [43]. During enterprise practice, students undertake projects as per the directives of their enterprise supervisors. The survey highlights that most students believe enterprise practice aids in enhancing their professional knowledge and practical skills (with a mean value of 4.097).
University–industry collaboration entails that enterprise practice utilizes a double-supervisor system consisting of on-campus and off-campus guidance [44]. During the enterprise practice period, the off-campus enterprise supervisor assumes the primary supervisory role. They guide the students’ practical work in the enterprise, manage the project practice, and provide necessary professional support. Under the double-supervisor system, students are obligated to report their progress in enterprise practice to their on-campus supervisors regularly no less than twice a semester. On-campus supervisors are equipped to provide students with professional theoretical guidance on issues arising during enterprise practice. According to the survey, students expressed greater satisfaction with their university supervisors (mean value 4.321) compared to their enterprise supervisors (mean value 4.079).
As per the university–industry collaboration protocol, students must undertake a practice phase in the enterprise, wherein the enterprise supervisors organize various practical activities such as job skills training, job practice, and involvement in project practice and engineering project management. Unlike theoretical course learning on campus, practical teaching activities occur in the enterprise. The survey reveals that students are relatively dissatisfied with this aspect.
During the enterprise practice stage, students are recommended by their supervisors to join the joint postgraduate training practice base of the university or cooperative enterprises, where their supervisors undertake interdisciplinary research, or the relevant industry management departments. The survey indicates that students have a low recognition of the degree of alignment between the content of enterprise practice and their majors (mean value 3.679). Many students believe that there is still a disconnect between the job arrangement, work content of enterprise practice, and their majors. Thus, relevance and closeness require further improvement.
According to the training program of professional degree postgraduates in universities of applied sciences, on-campus theoretical courses are typically arranged from the second academic year after enrollment after students have completed their engineering practice in enterprises [45]. However, the survey results indicate that more than half of the students feel that there is a disconnect between the theoretical course content taught on campus and the practical experience gained during their enterprise practice (mean value 2.41).
University–industry collaboration requires postgraduates to engage in enterprise practice first, identify problems in practice, search for solutions during theoretical learning, and then test results in enterprise practice [46]. However, according to the survey, students do not consider the relevance of the graduation thesis topic to the content of enterprise practice to be high, with a mean value of 3.89.
4.3. Linear Regression Analysis
The linear regression analysis indicated that postgraduate students evaluated enterprise practices differently depending on their academic year, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 1. Table 3 presents the results of the linear regression analysis, including the standardized coefficients of the model, t-values, VIF values, R2, adjusted R2, etc., for the test of the model and the analysis of the formula of the model. The F-test results show a significant difference in the evaluation of enterprise practice among postgraduate students of different academic years (p-value = 0.001), and the original hypothesis that the regression coefficient is 0 is rejected. The VIF was less than 10 for all variables, indicating that the model was well-constructed without multiple cointegration problems. Figure 1 shows the original data plot, the fitted model, and the predicted model values. Overall, the survey statistics achieved the expected objectives and are statistically significant.
5. Discussion
University–industry collaboration offers a realistic work environment, enhancing students’ understanding of their future career prospects, improving their professional cognition and practical abilities, and assisting them in career planning [47]. This approach has been widely praised by students, suggesting that the innovative approach to postgraduate education through university–industry collaboration is well-received and supported. In contrast to traditional academic postgraduate education, this mode of education allows students to participate in engineering practice beforehand, fostering problem-solving skills and a teamwork mentality, ultimately aiding students in planning their future careers.
University–industry collaboration offers students an authentic engineering environment wherein they become actively involved and transition from passive to active learners [48]. By identifying practical problems and constructing a system of engineering knowledge with guidance from both enterprise supervisors and university supervisors, students develop the competencies required to become a real-world engineer [49].
The findings of the survey suggest that a certain percentage of students are dissatisfied with the level of integration between theoretical learning and practical content in their enterprise practice. Furthermore, a small proportion of students expressed dissatisfaction with the alignment between their graduation thesis topics and the practical content of their enterprise practice, indicating a potential mismatch between the content of their enterprise practice and the university curriculum.
There are several factors that contribute to the current curriculum’s inability to meet the needs of enterprises. Firstly, the curriculum is primarily theoretical and academic, failing to keep pace with timely industrial advancements. Furthermore, the learning methods and practical courses are outdated and disconnected from the professional field, and course content updates are infrequent. Secondly, the practical courses lack systematic design and collaborative development, leading to postgraduates’ vocational abilities falling behind industry requirements. University supervisors may not fully appreciate the importance of enterprise practice for postgraduate students, exacerbating the disconnect between theory and practice. Moreover, enterprise supervisors may lack university teaching qualifications, which limits their ability to integrate engineering projects with practical teaching. Postgraduates may face difficulties in management and guidance outside of their busy work, resulting in repetitive work with limited involvement in technical research projects. Consequently, engineering practice may become ineffective and superficial.
6. Conclusions
University–industry collaboration is a novel approach to professional degree postgraduate training for universities of applied sciences. It prioritizes practical training and holds significant exploratory value within the current context of postgraduate education reform in China. To promote the implementation of university–industry collaboration, corresponding measures should be taken.
6.1. Practice-Oriented Professional Training
University–industry collaboration is a practice-oriented educational approach that trains professional degree postgraduate students to meet the unique needs of a country [50]. However, universities of applied sciences that are primarily focused on undergraduate education may have a path dependence on long-standing undergraduate teaching, leading to postgraduate curricula that are merely continuations of undergraduate education [51]. Additionally, supervisors may lack experience in post-graduate education and corporate experience, which makes it challenging to understand the critical attributes of professional degree postgraduate training [52]. To enhance practical and innovative skills, students must stay up to date with the latest advancements in their field and gain practical experience through job attachments, engineering experiences, and research [53]. With the guidance of both enterprise and university supervisors, students can develop into high-level practical professionals capable of identifying problems and devising innovative solutions. The curriculum should incorporate the latest developments in key technologies, industry standards, hot topics, and trends to ensure that students receive a comprehensive education that integrates engineering knowledge and practical ability [54]. This practice-oriented approach fosters a deep understanding of the practical attributes of the profession and effectively applies their skills to real-world problems.
6.2. Engineering Practice throughout the Whole Process of Training
For postgraduate students at universities of applied sciences, developing engineering practice skills is essential [55]. Throughout their education, students can gain industry expertise through various activities. Under the guidance of dual supervisors, postgraduates can select research topics based on industry enterprise needs, solve practical engineering problems, and stay up to date with industry trends and frontier technologies. This can enhance their engineering practice and innovation abilities through their thesis work.
In postgraduate education, university–industry collaboration requires enterprise practice to be closely integrated into the curriculum, and the learning system should be based on engineering cognition and graduation theses to solve practical problems [56]. Students should participate in multi-level engineering practice, combining theory and practice through active inquiry learning, and enhance their engineering practice and innovation abilities. The participation of postgraduates in R&D engineering projects has achieved significant social and economic benefits for enterprises, strongly promoting collaborative innovation between universities and enterprises and reflecting the characteristics of university–industry collaboration in postgraduate education [57].
The specialized courses on campus should focus closely on the entire industrial chain, with an increased proportion of practical teaching [58]. This can be achieved through case-based teaching, engineering problem-oriented teaching, and the use of various teaching methods such as heuristic teaching and on-site teaching. Case teaching can build a bridge between teaching contents and engineering practice, promoting students’ understanding and mastery of engineering knowledge. Postgraduates can propose solutions to common and key technical problems in the industry and complete their graduation theses accordingly, creating practical application value with engineering as the background.
6.3. Operation Mechanism of University–Industry Collaboration
To address the issue of the mismatch between the supply of high-level professionals and industrial demands, professional degree graduate students should prioritize university–industry collaboration. This comprehensive approach integrates knowledge transfer, skill development, and value creation, and involves various stakeholders. A robust management system that aligns with educational goals must be established to promote in-depth integration of industry and education. Enterprises are not only places for students to carry out engineering project practice but also becomes important participants in postgraduate education. Universities should make use of the platform of industrial enterprises to transform knowledge achievements and serve the technological innovation needs of industrial enterprises. This integration requires both universities and enterprises to work together in developing a unified body that integrates knowledge transfer, ability cultivation, and value shaping, and to define the relationship of responsibility and rights among universities, enterprises, society, and postgraduates. Strengthening the management and construction of engineering practice bases is crucial for forming a replicable institutional experience. The cooperation with domestic and international enterprises in building postgraduate practice bases should be expanded, and practice bases covering the whole industrial chain of the industry should be established. The relevant management departments of universities should strengthen the selection criteria and assessment indexes of practice bases and establish corresponding assessments, rewards, punishments, and withdrawal mechanisms through standardized management. Policy supports and construction investment should be given to the bases with good cooperation and cultivation results, and enterprises with poor training and low professional fit should be rectified or withdrawn in a timely manner. Third-party social agencies can be introduced to regulate the access, assessment, and withdrawal of enterprises that provide off-campus practice platforms.
6.4. Construction of “Double Supervisor” Faculty
The double-supervisor faculty team consists of university and off-campus enterprise supervisors who jointly guide engineering practice projects, design and implement postgraduate courses, and oversee postgraduate graduation theses. This mechanism for cultivating postgraduates under the double supervisor system [59] can lead to academicization due to the lack of practical experience of university and enterprise supervisors. To address this issue, universities can establish clear requirements and assessment mechanisms [60], such as setting up enterprise project funds and increasing corresponding assessment and title promotion indexes. The selection, guidance, and assessment of enterprise supervisors should also be strengthened, and universities can organize activities such as tutorials for enterprise supervisors to enrich their experience in guiding students [61]. Regular elimination of supervisors is important to ensure their quality [62]. University–industry collaboration in postgraduate education disrupts the traditional theory-practice-theory model and expands the educational significance of postgraduate education [63]. It offers a new model for cultivating professional degree postgraduates and provides valuable insights for other universities of applied sciences.
Conceptualization and writing original draft, Y.Z.; data curation, Y.Z. and X.C.; review and editing, X.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data can be available from the corresponding author upon request.
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions that enhanced the quality of the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Fitting effects of different grades of postgraduate students on the evaluation of UBC.
Characteristics of the sample.
| Characteristic | Group | F | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 153 | 52.8 |
| Female | 137 | 47.2 | |
| Grade | 1st-year graduate |
113 | 39 |
| 2nd-year graduate students | 77 | 26.6 | |
| 3rd-year graduate |
50 | 17.2 | |
| Graduated | 50 | 17.2 | |
| Age | <20 | 1 | 0.4 |
| 20–25 | 183 | 63.1 | |
| 26–30 | 94 | 32.4 | |
| >30 | 12 | 4.1 |
Descriptive statistics.
| Mean | SD | Variance | Kurtosis | Skewness | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise Teaching | 3.883 | 0.915 | 0.837 | 0.193 | −0.638 |
| University Teaching | 4.072 | 0.77 | 0.593 | 0.317 | −0.582 |
| Integration of Theory and Practice | 4.01 | 0.83 | 0.688 | 0.814 | −0.751 |
| Guidance from university supervisors | 4.321 | 0.783 | 0.613 | 1.21 | −1.067 |
| Guidance from enterprise supervisors | 4.079 | 0.979 | 0.959 | 0.834 | −1.05 |
| Understanding of the real situation of the future career | 4.066 | 0.771 | 0.594 | −0.085 | −0.524 |
| Improvement of professional cognition and practical ability | 4.097 | 0.752 | 0.565 | 0.213 | −0.603 |
| Contributing to future career planning | 4.017 | 0.742 | 0.55 | −0.014 | −0.438 |
| The relevance of major and enterprise practice | 3.679 | 0.879 | 0.772 | −0.422 | −0.127 |
| The relevance of university theoretical study and enterprise practice | 2.41 | 0.938 | 0.879 | −0.215 | 0.364 |
| The relevance of master’s thesis and enterprise practice | 3.89 | 0.865 | 0.749 | −0.692 | −0.301 |
Linear regression (least squares) analysis of postgraduate students’ evaluation of UBC by grade.
| Linear Regression (Least Squares) Analysis n = 290 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstandardized |
Standardized |
t | p | VIF | R² | Adjusted R² | F | ||
| B | Standard Error | Beta | |||||||
| Constants | 2.179 | 0.492 | - | 4.434 | 0.000 *** | - | 0.115 | 0.077 | F = 3 p = 0.001 *** |
| Enterprise Teaching | 0.218 | 0.136 | 0.179 | 1.598 | 0.111 | 3.927 | |||
| University Teaching | −0.211 | 0.118 | −0.146 | −1.785 | 0.075 * | 2.093 | |||
| Integration of Theory and Practice | 0.219 | 0.145 | 0.163 | 1.512 | 0.132 | 3.634 | |||
| Guidance from university supervisors | 0.274 | 0.122 | 0.193 | 2.239 | 0.026 ** | 2.318 | |||
| Guidance from enterprise supervisors | −0.225 | 0.111 | −0.198 | −2.031 | 0.043 ** | 2.96 | |||
| Understanding of the real situation of the future career | −0.005 | 0.158 | −0.003 | −0.031 | 0.975 | 3.767 | |||
| Improvement of professional cognition and practical ability | 0.152 | 0.167 | 0.102 | 0.906 | 0.366 | 4.001 | |||
| Contributing to future career planning | −0.314 | 0.158 | −0.209 | −1.989 | 0.048 ** | 3.455 | |||
| The relevance of major and enterprise practice | −0.322 | 0.098 | −0.254 | −3.288 | 0.001 *** | 1.871 | |||
| The relevance of university theoretical study and enterprise practice | −0.061 | 0.07 | −0.051 | −0.868 | 0.386 | 1.101 | |||
| The relevance of master’s thesis and enterprise practice | 0.104 | 0.087 | 0.081 | 1.2 | 0.231 | 1.431 | |||
| Dependent variable: Grade | |||||||||
***, **, * represent 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance, respectively.
References
1. Littenberg-Tobias, J.; Reich, J. Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: A case study of a MOOC-based blended professional degree program. Internet High. Educ.; 2020; 47, 100759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100759]
2. Barnacle, R.; Dall’Alba, G. Research degrees as professional education?. Stud. High. Educ.; 2011; 36, pp. 459-470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075071003698607]
3. Jones, M. Contemporary trends in professional doctorates. Stud. High. Educ.; 2018; 43, pp. 814-825. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1438095]
4. Bedard, K.; Herman, D.A. Who goes to graduate/professional school? The importance of economic fluctuations, undergraduate field, and ability. Econ. Educ. Rev.; 2008; 27, pp. 197-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.007]
5. Lewis, E.G.; Cardwell, J.M. The big five personality traits, perfectionism and their association with mental health among UK students on professional degree programmes. BMC Psychol.; 2020; 8, 54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00423-3]
6. Hathaway, R.S.; Nagda, B.A.; Gregerman, S.R. The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study. J. Coll. Stud. Dev.; 2002; 43, pp. 614-631.
7. Anderson, C.; Day, K.; McLaughlin, P. Student perspectives on the dissertation process in a master’s degree concerned with professional practice. Stud. Contin. Educ.; 2008; 30, pp. 33-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01580370701841531]
8. Arranz, N.; Arroyabe, M.F.; Sena, V.; Arranz, C.F.; de Arroyabe, J.C.F. University-enterprise cooperation for the employability of higher education graduates: A social capital approach. Stud. High. Educ.; 2022; 47, pp. 990-999. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2055323]
9. Mahfoudh, D.; Boujelbene, Y.; Mathieu, J.P. University-enterprise cooperation: Determinants and impacts. Mediterranean Symposium on Enterprise–New Technology Synergy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 91-121.
10. Orazbayeva, B.; Plewa, C.; Davey, T.; Muros, V.G. The future of University-Business Cooperation: Research and practice priorities. J. Eng. Technol. Manag.; 2019; 54, pp. 67-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.10.001]
11. Alrajhi, A.N.; Aydin, N. Determinants of effective university–business collaboration: Empirical study of Saudi universities. J. Ind.-Univ. Collab.; 2019; 1, pp. 169-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIUC-05-2019-0011]
12. Orazbayeva, B.; Davey, T.; Plewa, C.; Galán-Muros, V. Engagement of academics in education-driven university-business cooperation: A motivation-based perspective. Stud. High. Educ.; 2020; 45, pp. 1723-1736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1582013]
13. Bruno, G.; Diglio, A.; Kalinowski, T.B.; Piccolo, C.; Rippa, P. University-Business Cooperation to design a transnational curriculum for energy efficiency operations. Stud. High. Educ.; 2021; 46, pp. 763-781. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1652810]
14. Ripoll Feliu, V.; Diaz Rodriguez, A. Knowledge transfer and university-business relations: Current trends in research. Intang. Cap.; 2017; 13, pp. 697-719. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.990]
15. Mascarenhas, C.; Ferreira, J.J.; Marques, C. University–industry cooperation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Sci. Public Policy; 2018; 45, pp. 708-718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy003]
16. Clauss, T.; Kesting, T. How businesses should govern knowledge-intensive collaborations with universities: An empirical investigation of university professors. Ind. Mark. Manag.; 2017; 62, pp. 185-198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.09.001]
17. Quintana, C.D.D.; Mora, J.G.; Pérez, P.J.; Vila, L.E. Enhancing the development of competencies: The role of UBC. Eur. J. Educ.; 2016; 51, pp. 10-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12162]
18. Davey, T.; Plewa, C.; Galán Muros, V. University-business cooperation outcomes and impacts–a European perspective. Moderne Konzepte des Organisationalen Marketings; Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2014; pp. 161-176.
19. Ranga, M.; Hoareau, C.; Durazzi, N.; Etzkowitz, H.; Marcucci, P.; Usher, A. Study on University-Business Cooperation in the US; LSE Enterprise: London, UK, 2013.
20. Gerasimov, B.N.; Vasyaycheva, V.A.; Gerasimov, K.B. Identification of the factors of competitiveness of industrial company based on the module approach. Entrep. Sustain. Issues; 2018; 6, 677. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.2(15)]
21. Rybnicek, R.; Königsgruber, R. What makes industry–university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. J. Bus. Econ.; 2019; 89, pp. 221-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6]
22. Osadchy, E.A.; Akhmetshin, E.M. Integration of industrial and educational sphere in modernization of economic relations. J. Appl. Econ. Sci.; 2015; 10, 35.
23. Ziatdinov, A.M.; Shaydullina, A.R. Advantages of Information Technologies in Integration of Industry, Science and Education. Материалы Научнoй Сессии Ученых Альметьевскoгo Гoсударственнoгo Нефтянoгo Института; 2013; 2, pp. 98-101.
24. Butt, R.; Siddiqui, H.; Soomro, R.A.; Asad, M.M. Integration of Industrial Revolution 4.0 and IOTs in academia: A state-of-the-art review on the concept of Education 4.0 in Pakistan. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ.; 2020; 17, pp. 337-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-02-2020-0022]
25. Moraes, E.B.; Kipper, L.M.; Hackenhaar Kellermann, A.C.; Austria, L.; Leivas, P.; Moraes, J.A.R.; Witczak, M. Integration of Industry 4.0 technologies with Education 4.0: Advantages for improvements in learning. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ.; 2022; ahead of print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-11-2021-0201]
26. Shaydullina, A.R.; Ziatdinov, A.M. Information technologies as the basis for the integration of science, education and industry. Ученые записки Альметьевскoгo гoсударственнoгo нефтянoгo института; 2013; 11, pp. 172-174.
27. Kartashova, A.; Shirko, T.; Khomenko, I.; Naumova, L. Educational activity of national research universities as a basis for integration of science, education and industry in regional research and educational complexes. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2015; 214, pp. 619-627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.768]
28. Ren, J.; Wu, Q.; Han, Z.; Wang, D.; Gong, K. Research on the education of industry-education integration for geological majors. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract.; 2018; 18, pp. 1315-1322.
29. Durmuș, A.; Dağli, A. Integration of vocational schools to industry 4.0 by updating curriculum and programs. Int. J. Multidiscip. Stud. Innov. Technol.; 2017; 1, pp. 1-3.
30. Shaidullina, A.R.; Masalimova, A.R.; Vlasova, V.K.; Lisitzina, T.B.; Korzhanova, A.A.; Tzekhanovich, O.M.; Masalimova, A.R. Education, science and manufacture integration models features in continuous professional education system. Life Sci. J.; 2014; 11, pp. 478-485.
31. Bordogna, J.; Fromm, E.; Ernst, E.W. Engineering education: Innovation through integration. J. Eng. Educ.; 1993; 82, pp. 3-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1993.tb00065.x]
32. Manatos, M.J.; Sarrico, C.S.; Rosa, M.J. The integration of quality management in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell.; 2017; 28, pp. 159-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1050180]
33. Shaidullina, A.R.; Krylov, D.A.; Sadovaya, V.A.; Yunusova, G.R.; Glebov, S.O.; Masalimova, A.R.; Korshunova, I.V. Model of vocational school, high school and manufacture integration in the regional system of professional education. Rev. Eur. Stud.; 2015; 7, 63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/res.v7n1p63]
34. Ahad, A.; Hasan, S.; Hoque, M.R.; Chowdhury, S.R. Challenges and Impacts of Technology Integration/Up-gradation in the Education Industry: A Case Study. J. Syst. Integr.; 2018; 9, pp. 26-36.
35. Owusu-Manu, D.G.; Edwards, D.J.; Holt, G.D.; Prince, C. Industry and higher education integration: A focus on quantity surveying practice. Ind. High. Educ.; 2014; 28, pp. 27-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2014.0188]
36. Shaidullina, A.R.; Sheymardanov, S.F.; Ganieva, Y.N.; Yakovlev, S.A.; Khairullina, E.R.; Biktemirova, M.K.; Kashirina, I.B. The peculiarities of the advanced training of the future specialists for the competitive high-tech industry in the process of integration of education, science and industry. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci.; 2015; 6, 43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2s3p43]
37. Watson, P. The role and integration of learning outcomes into the educational process. Act. Learn. High. Educ.; 2002; 3, pp. 205-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787402003003002]
38. Zhao, Y.; Rajabov, B.; Yang, Q. Innovation and entrepreneurship education reform of engineering talents in application-oriented universities based on cross-border integration. Int. J. Front. Eng. Technol.; 2019; 1, pp. 56-61.
39. Brekhman, A.I.; Sakhapov, R.L.; Absalyamova, S.G. Innovative model of integration of education and business in the road construction industry. Лет; 2014; 2014, 41.
40. Gatian, A.W. Is user satisfaction a valid measure of system effectiveness?. Inf. Manag.; 1994; 26, pp. 119-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(94)90036-1]
41. Bokhari, R.H. The relationship between system usage and user satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag.; 2005; 18, pp. 211-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410390510579927]
42. Abdurrahaman, D.T.; Owusu, A.; Bakare, A.S. Evaluating factors affecting user satisfaction in university enterprise content management (ECM) systems. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval.; 2020; 23, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34190/EJISE.20.23.1.001]
43. Orazbayeva, B.; Plewa, C. Academic motivations to engage in university-business cooperation: A fuzzy set analysis. Stud. High. Educ.; 2022; 47, pp. 486-498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1761784]
44. Galan-Muros, V.; Davey, T. The UBC ecosystem: Putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation. J. Technol. Transf.; 2019; 44, pp. 1311-1346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9562-3]
45. Sarpong, D.; AbdRazak, A.; Alexander, E.; Meissner, D. Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2017; 123, pp. 142-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.032]
46. Shapira, A.; Rosenfeld, Y. Achieving construction innovation through academia-industry cooperation—Keys to success. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.; 2011; 137, pp. 223-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000057]
47. Fadeev, A.S.; Gerdy, V.N.; Baltyan, V.K.; Fedorov, V.G. The Integration of Education, Science, and Industry: The Model of Bauman University. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = High. Educ. Russ.; 2016; 4, pp. 55-63.
48. Abdibekov, U.; Zhakebayev, D.; Karuna, O.; Moisseyeva, Y. Integration of science, education and industry in the republic of Kazakhstan in the context of the development of new educational programs. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci.; 2015; 6, 364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6s5p364]
49. Smith, N.M.; Smith, J.M.; Battalora, L.A.; Teschner, B.A. Industry–university partnerships: Engineering education and corporate social responsibility. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.; 2018; 144, 04018002. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000367]
50. Smirnova, Z.V.; Vaganova, O.I.; Loshkareva, D.A.; Konyaeva, E.A.; Gladkova, M.N. Practice-oriented approach implementation in vocational education. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 483, 012003.
51. Rezer, T.; Kuznetsova, E. Practice-oriented training as a mechanism of professional experience development. EDULEARN19 Proceedings; IATED: Arndell Park, Australia, 2019; pp. 2107-2110.
52. Dolgova, V.I.; Belikov, V.A.; Kozhevnikov, M.V. Partnership as a Factor in the Effectiveness of Practice-Oriented Education of Students. Int. J. Educ. Pract.; 2019; 7, pp. 78-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.72.78.87]
53. Pokholkov, Y.P.; Rozhkova, S.V.; Tolkacheva, K.K. Practice-oriented educational technologies for training engineers. Proceedings of the IEEE 2013 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL); Kazan, Russia, 25–27 September 2013; pp. 619-620.
54. Svirin, Y.A.; Titor, S.E.; Petrov, A.A.; Smirnov, E.N.; Morozova, E.A.; Scherbakova, O.Y. Practice-Oriented Model of Professional Education in Russia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ.; 2016; 11, pp. 7368-7380.
55. Sheppard, S.; Colby, A.; Macatangay, K.; Sullivan, W. What is engineering practice?. Int. J. Eng. Educ.; 2007; 22, 429.
56. Whitbeck, C. Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011.
57. Cunningham, C.M.; Carlsen, W.S. Teaching engineering practices. J. Sci. Teach. Educ.; 2014; 25, pp. 197-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5]
58. Trevelyan, J. Towards a theoretical framework for engineering practice. Eng. Pract. A Glob. Context Underst. Tech. Soc.; 2014; 2014, pp. 33-60.
59. Slick, S.K. The university supervisor: A disenfranchised outsider. Teach. Teach. Educ.; 1998; 14, pp. 821-834. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00028-6]
60. Borders, L.D. The Good Supervisor; ERIC Clearinghouse: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
61. Wang, X. The Design and Management of the Supervisor Team for Professional Degree Graduate Students under the School-Enterprise Cooperation Model. 2015 Conference on Informatization in Education, Management and Business (IEMB-15); Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 1033-1037.
62. Tucker, M.K.; Jimmieson, N.L.; Bordia, P. Supervisor support as a double-edged sword: Supervisor emotion management accounts for the buffering and reverse-buffering effects of supervisor support. Int. J. Stress Manag.; 2018; 25, 14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000046]
63. Jia, G.; Cheng, L.; Wang, S. Application of double supervisor teaching in practical teaching of rehabilitation technology specialty. Chin. J. Med. Educ. Res.; 2021; 12, pp. 668-671.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Chen, Xinrong 2 1 School of International Exchange, Shanghai Polytechnic University, Shanghai 201209, China
2 Academy for Engineering and Technology, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China