Industry-academia-research collaboration in talent cultivation offers a crucial perspective for addressing the challenge of insufficient student motivation in vocational education. To explore its mechanisms and pathways in fostering learning interest, this study adopts the theoretical framework of industry-academia-research collaborative education to systematically elucidate the unique value of this model in promoting paradigm shifts in learning, expanding spaces for interest development, and establishing diversified incentive systems. Analysis reveals current practical challenges, including superficial collaboration among stakeholders, resource shortages at grassroots teaching units, lack of targeted evaluation and feedback mechanisms, and disconnection between curriculum content and industrial demands. Based on these findings, it is proposed to establish a course system co-developed by schools and enterprises that emphasizes interest orientation, integrating real-world projects and typical work tasks into instruction; to build a multi-party intervention mechanism involving industries, schools, researchers, and students to stimulate interest; to reform assessment systems by incorporating interest-related indicators such as professional attitude and teamwork into diversified evaluations; and to set up dedicated funding to support the development of interest-driven course resources, invite industry experts into campuses, and conduct follow-up research. These strategies can serve as references for vocational institutions seeking to deepen industry-education integration and enhance student engagement. 产学研协同育人是破解职业院校学生学习兴趣不足困境的重要视角。为探究其对学习兴趣培养的作用机制与实现路径,以产学研协同育人理论为分析框架,系统阐释该模式在促进学习范式转换、拓展兴趣生成空间、构建多元激励机制等方面的独特价值。分析发现,当前实践中存在主体协同流于形式、基层教学单位资源匮乏、缺乏针对性的评价反馈机制、课程内容与产业需求脱节等现实挑战。由此提出应构建校企共育的兴趣导向型课程体系,将真实项目与典型工作任务嵌入教学;建立产业、学校、研究、学生多方联动的兴趣干预机制;改革评价体系,将职业态度、团队协作等兴趣相关指标纳入多元考核;设立专项基金支持兴趣激发型课程资源开发、企业专家进校活动及跟踪研究。上述路径可为职业院校深化产教融合、提升学生学习兴趣提供参考。
Wangxia et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: