Reflecting on my experience in engineering education, the rapid evolution of the automotive industry, particularly the shift towards electrification, presents a significant challenge for academic programs. The core mission is to cultivate applied, innovative talents who can immediately contribute to this dynamic field. Practical training courses are the critical bridge between theoretical knowledge and professional competency. However, traditional pedagogical methods often fall short in preparing students for the complex, interdisciplinary demands of modern battery electric vehicle development and validation. This necessitates a fundamental rethinking of how we design and deliver hands-on learning experiences. The goal is not merely knowledge transfer but fostering a deep, integrative understanding of systems, developing robust problem-solving skills, and instilling a mindset aligned with industry ethics and innovation. This article details a comprehensive reform initiative implemented for the “Battery Electric Vehicle Performance Testing” practical training course, aimed at achieving a deeper integration of industry and education, enhancing instructional quality, and ultimately, improving graduate readiness.
The traditional structure of the practical training course, while foundational, exhibited several limitations that hindered its effectiveness in the contemporary context. Primarily, the scope of content was narrow. With limited access to specialized equipment, the curriculum was often restricted to perhaps half a dozen basic experiments focusing on isolated components like battery management system (BMS) structure or fundamental motor control. This approach failed to capture the systemic nature and performance interdependencies within a complete battery electric vehicle. For instance, understanding how battery thermal management strategies impact overall vehicle range and power delivery requires integrated testing scenarios that were previously missing. Secondly, the pedagogical mode was predominantly instructor-centered. The “demonstrate-and-imitate” model, where students follow preset steps, stifles initiative and critical thinking. Students became passive executors of a recipe rather than active investigators, which is antithetical to the needs of an R&D or testing engineer working on the next generation of battery electric vehicle technology. Finally, the assessment framework was simplistic and output-focused, typically weighing a final report more heavily than the process. This did not incentivize deep engagement, collaborative problem-solving, or the iterative refinement of experimental approaches—all essential skills for performance validation of a battery electric vehicle.
The reform was driven by clear objectives: to construct a practice-oriented curriculum tightly coupled with real-world industrial projects; to enhance students’ hands-on abilities, innovation capacity, and problem-solving skills through diverse, engaging teaching modes; and to cultivate well-rounded professionals who possess not only technical expertise but also professional ethics and a systemic understanding of battery electric vehicle technology. The implementation involved a multi-faceted overhaul of course content, teaching methodology, and evaluation systems.
The first and most crucial step was the comprehensive restructuring of the course content. Leveraging new investments in laboratory infrastructure, we expanded and reorganized the practical projects from a limited set to a coherent sequence of ten integrated experiments. This new structure is designed to cover the core “three-electric” systems (battery, motor, and electronic control) and their vehicle-level integration. The revised curriculum framework is summarized in the table below:
| Module | Practical Projects | Core Skills & Knowledge Objectives |
|---|---|---|
| System Cognition & Diagnostics | 1. Whole-Vehicle Architecture Disassembly & Assembly 2. On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Scanning & Fault Simulation |
Understanding the spatial layout, component interfaces, and diagnostic protocols of a battery electric vehicle. |
| Powertrain & Drivetrain | 3. Transmission System Demonstrator Operation & Analysis 4. Drive Motor Performance Test on Dynamometer |
Analyzing torque transmission paths and characterizing motor performance (efficiency map, torque-speed curve) critical for battery electric vehicle dynamics. |
| Battery System | 5. Battery Pack & BMS Comprehensive Testing 6. Battery Charge/Discharge Characteristic Analysis 7. Supercapacitor Module Demonstration |
Testing cell/pack parameters (capacity, internal resistance), evaluating BMS logic (balancing, SOC estimation), and understanding hybrid energy storage concepts for battery electric vehicle. |
| Modeling & Simulation | 8. Battery Pack Modeling & Simulation Test 9. Drive Motor Modeling & Simulation Test |
Using digital tools (e.g., MATLAB/Simulink) to create virtual models, simulating performance under various conditions, and validating against physical test data for a battery electric vehicle. |
| Integration & Thermal Management | 10. Drive Motor Temperature Rise Test & Analysis | Investigating thermal behavior, a critical factor for the safety, reliability, and longevity of battery electric vehicle components. |
To deliver this enriched content effectively, we abandoned the single-mode lecture format in favor of a blended, multi-modal teaching strategy. The cornerstone is the Online-Offline Blended Learning model. Prior to each lab session, students engage with curated digital resources—instructional videos, interactive diagrams, and pre-lab quizzes—hosted on the university’s Learning Management System (LMS). This flips the classroom, ensuring students arrive with foundational knowledge and prepared questions. The physical lab time is then dedicated to collaborative, hands-on exploration, troubleshooting, and in-depth discussion, with the instructor acting as a facilitator and mentor rather than a sole source of information.
A significant innovation was the incorporation of Digital Teaching and Simulation. For projects like battery and motor modeling, students use software tools to construct and test virtual prototypes. This allows them to explore scenarios that are costly, time-consuming, or risky to replicate physically, such as extreme temperature cycling or fault conditions in a battery electric vehicle system. The simulation work reinforces theoretical concepts through practical application. For example, students model a battery pack’s discharge behavior and validate it using parameters like capacity (C) derived from physical tests:
$$C = I \cdot t$$
where \(I\) is the discharge current and \(t\) is the time to reach the cut-off voltage. Comparing simulated and empirical data cultivates a rigorous, evidence-based engineering mindset.
Complementing structured labs, we introduced an Open-Lab and Industry-Education Integration initiative. Students form small teams to undertake optional, project-based challenges using advanced laboratory equipment or within affiliated industry practice bases. Projects might involve comparative testing of different battery chemistries or analyzing real-world vehicle data logs. This environment mimics industrial R&D, fostering self-directed learning, project management, and teamwork. It directly connects academic learning with the practical challenges faced by battery electric vehicle manufacturers and suppliers.
Furthermore, we systematically integrated Curriculum Ideology and Politics into the technical fabric of the course. This is not a separate lecture but a natural infusion of professional values. When discussing battery technology, we highlight the environmental imperative and national strategic focus behind developing sustainable energy storage, linking it to the societal role of the battery electric vehicle. During hands-on work, we emphasize the “craftsman spirit”—precision, attention to detail, and data integrity—which is paramount in safety-critical automotive testing. Case studies of leading Chinese and global battery electric vehicle companies are used to discuss innovation, intellectual property, and ethical responsibility in engineering. This holistic approach aims to develop responsible engineers who are technically proficient and ethically grounded.
A reformed course demands a reformed assessment system. We replaced the binary operational/report evaluation with a Diversified and Multi-stage Assessment Framework. The final grade now synthesizes multiple competencies:
| Assessment Component | Weight | Evaluated Competency |
|---|---|---|
| In-Lab Operational Performance & Data Acquisition | 20% | Practical skill, equipment handling, procedural rigor for battery electric vehicle systems. |
| Comprehensive Lab Report & Data Analysis | 40% | Technical writing, data interpretation, ability to derive conclusions and identify anomalies. |
| Digital Modeling & Simulation Assignment | 20% | Computational skills, model-building ability, understanding of system dynamics in a virtual battery electric vehicle context. |
| Final Oral Defense / Presentation | 20% | Communication skills, depth of understanding, ability to respond to technical queries. |
This is supplemented by Process-Oriented Evaluation, where instructors provide formative feedback during projects on teamwork, problem-solving approach, and iterative improvement. In some capstone projects, we also incorporate Industry Expert Evaluation, where partnering engineers assess the relevance and robustness of student project outcomes from an industrial perspective.
The impact of these reforms has been quantitatively and qualitatively observable. Comparing outcomes between a cohort before reform (Cohort A) and the first cohort after full implementation (Cohort B) reveals positive trends. Cohort B showed a marked improvement in average scores, a higher pass rate, and a significant reduction in the score gap between highest and lowest performers, indicating a more uniformly effective learning experience. The score distribution for Cohort B was also tighter and shifted towards the higher grade brackets, suggesting improved overall mastery of battery electric vehicle performance testing concepts and skills.
| Metric | Cohort A (Pre-Reform) | Cohort B (Post-Reform) |
|---|---|---|
| Average Score | 80.8 | 85.6 |
| Pass Rate | 98.2% | 100% |
| Highest Score | 94 | 98 |
| Lowest Score | 59 | 68 |
Qualitatively, student engagement during labs increased noticeably. Team discussions became more focused on “why” and “what if” rather than just “how.” The quality of lab reports improved, with more insightful data analysis and critical discussion of error sources. The open-lab projects yielded several innovative test proposals, demonstrating applied creativity. Furthermore, student feedback consistently highlighted the value of the simulation work in solidifying theoretical understanding and the relevance of the industry-connected projects.
In conclusion, reforming the practical training for battery electric vehicle performance testing requires a systemic approach that aligns content, pedagogy, and assessment with the demands of the modern automotive industry. By expanding the curriculum to cover integrated systems, employing a blend of physical, digital, and open-ended learning modes, thoughtfully integrating professional ethics, and implementing a multifaceted evaluation system, we can create a more effective and engaging learning environment. This reform paradigm moves beyond skill training towards cultivating the analytical, innovative, and responsible engineering professionals essential for advancing battery electric vehicle technology. The journey is continuous, requiring ongoing updates to content, collaboration with industry and peer institutions, and refinement of teaching resources. However, the initial results affirm that such an integrated reform strategy is a powerful means to bridge the gap between academia and the evolving world of electric mobility.