Student-centred teaching methods, such as flipped learning, have been found to enhance learning outcomes in higher education (HE); however, their impact on factors that influence student learning and well-being has been less researched. In addition to facing various challenges during their first study year, first-year students’ preparedness for student-centred and active learning methods can be low at the start of HE, requiring research to look beyond short time-span changes and cross-sectional associations. To address these gaps, this study examined the development of engineering HE students’ ( n = 367) satisfaction of basic psychological needs – autonomy (RQ1), competence (RQ2) and relatedness (RQ3) – over time in two parallel sets of four engineering mathematics courses implemented with two student-centred pedagogical models: a lecture-based model (control; n = 192) and a flipped learning model (intervention; n = 175). Using five measurement points across the academic year 2019 to 2020, we analysed longitudinal change in students’ need satisfaction with two-level growth models. The results showed a decline in autonomy satisfaction in the lecture-based group, while the flipped model mitigated this decline (interaction between measurement point and teaching model: β = 0.042, p = .008). Regarding competence satisfaction, the lecture-based group declined more steeply than the flipped model (β = 0.055, p = .002). Relatedness satisfaction increased over time in both groups, although this growth decelerated over time (Time: β = 0.127, p < .001). When pandemic restrictions began, declines in autonomy and competence satisfaction were more pronounced in the lecture-based group. Differences between genders (autonomy and competence) and high versus low achievers (competence) were observed. The results imply that, in first-year, high-enrolment, or otherwise demanding HE courses, student-centred course design can provide benefits by supporting students’ autonomy and competence through clear structure, guided preparation, active participation and timely feedback, even during disruptions to normal teaching formats.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Puhakka et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: