1. bookVolume 22 (2019): Issue 1 (July 2019)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Comparison of Academic Performance of Students in Online Vs Traditional Engineering Course

Published Online: 24 Jan 2020
Volume & Issue: Volume 22 (2019) - Issue 1 (July 2019)
Page range: 1 - 13
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Universities in the U.S. typically offer to teach introductory engineering courses in large classes to tackle the increase in undergraduate engineering enrolment and to save on cost of teaching. Previous studies done on traditionally taught large classes have shown the negative effects it has on students and faculty. Many institutions use online courses to teach these large classes due to the flexibility they provide students with in their schedule and pace of learning, as well as being less expensive for the university. This study aimed to investigate the effect of online pedagogy on the academic performance of students enrolled in mechanics of materials course taught at a U.S. Midwestern University. The findings of the study reveal that the online pedagogy had a negative effect on student academic performance when compared with the traditionally taught group. This was true for all demographics (gender, enrolment status, nationality) and categories (high, medium and low academic performance) of students except for high performing students for whom online pedagogy shows promise.

Keywords

1. Adrian, L. M. (2010). Active learning in large classes: Can small interventions produce greater results than are statistically predictable? The Journal of General Education, 59(4), 223-237.10.5325/jgeneeduc.59.4.0223 Search in Google Scholar

2. Al Nashash, H., & Gunn, C. (2013). Lecture capture in engineering classes: Bridging gaps and enhancing learning. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 69-78. Search in Google Scholar

3. Benson, L. C., Orr, M. K., Biggers, S. B., Moss, W. F., Ohland, M. W., & Schiff, S. D. (2010). Student-centered active, cooperative learning in engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(5), 1097-1110. Search in Google Scholar

4. Bir, D. & Ahn, B. (2016). Applicability of online Mechanics of Materials course for engineering undergraduate students. Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference, Erie, PA.10.1109/FIE.2016.7757374 Search in Google Scholar

5. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131-14610.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00834.x Search in Google Scholar

6. Cakmak, M. (2009). The perceptions of student teachers about the effects of class size with regard to effective teaching process. The Qualitative Report, 14(3), 395-408. Search in Google Scholar

7. Cole, J. S., & Spence, S. W. (2012). Using continuous assessment to promote student engagement in a large class. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(5), 508-525.10.1080/03043797.2012.719002 Search in Google Scholar

8. Cooper, J. L. & Robinson, P. (2000). The argument for making large classes seem small. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 81, 5-16.10.1002/tl.8101 Search in Google Scholar

9. Cuseo, J. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. The Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 5-21. Search in Google Scholar

10. Eisenberg, E., Beer, F., & Johnston, E. R. (2009). Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and Dynamics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Search in Google Scholar

11. Evans, J. R., & Haase, I. M. (2001). Online business education in the twenty-first century: An analysis of potential target markets. Internet Research, 11(3), 246-260.10.1108/10662240110396432 Search in Google Scholar

12. Fata-Hartley, C. (2011). Resisting rote: The importance of active learning for all course learning objectives. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3), 36-39. Search in Google Scholar

13. Ghosh, R. (1999). The challenges of teaching large numbers of students in general education laboratory classes involving many graduate student assistants. Bioscene, 25(1), 7-11. Search in Google Scholar

14. Hejmadi, M. V. (2007). Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching large classes: Development and evaluation of a novel e-resource in cancer biology. Bioscience Education, 9(1), 1-12.10.3108/beej.9.2 Search in Google Scholar

15. Huba, M. E. & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campus: Shifting the focus from Teaching to Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Search in Google Scholar

16. Kilby, T. (2001). The direction of Web-based training: A practitioner’s view. The Learning Organization, 8(5), 194-199.10.1108/EUM0000000005912 Search in Google Scholar

17. Kryder, L. G. (2002). Large lecture format: Some lessons learned. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 88-93.10.1177/108056990206500110 Search in Google Scholar

18. Lindenlaub, J. C. (1981). A Hybrid lecture/self-study system for large engineering classes. Engineering Education, 72(3), 201-207. Search in Google Scholar

19. McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman C. E. (2007). Reforming a large lecture modern physics course for engineering majors using a PER-based design. AIP Conference Proceedings, 883(1), 34-37.10.1063/1.2508685 Search in Google Scholar

20. Monks, J., & Schmidt, R. M. (2011). The impact of class size on outcomes in higher education. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 11(1), 1-17.10.2202/1935-1682.2803 Search in Google Scholar

21. Mora, M. C., Sancho-Bru, J. L., & Iserte, J. L. (2012). An e-assessment approach for evaluation in engineering overcrowded groups. Computers & Education, 59(2), 732-740.10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.011 Search in Google Scholar

22. Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175-185.10.1080/13562511003620001 Search in Google Scholar

23. Orr, M., Benson, L., Ohland, M., & Biggers, S. (2008). Student study habits and their effectiveness in an integrated statics and dynamics class. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Pittsburg, PA.10.18260/1-2--3838 Search in Google Scholar

24. Rieber, L. J. (2004). Using professional teaching assistants to support large group business communication classes. Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), 176-178.10.3200/JOEB.79.3.176-178 Search in Google Scholar

25. Rutz, E., Eckart, R., E Wade, J., Maltbie, C., Rafter, C., & Elkins, V. (2003). Student Performance and Acceptance of Instructional Technology: Comparing Technology-Enhanced and Traditional Instruction for a Course in Statics. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 133-140.10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00751.x Search in Google Scholar

26. Sargent, L. D., Allen, B. C., & Frahm, J. A. (2009). Enhancing the experience of student teams in large classes: Training teaching assistants to be coaches. Journal of Management Education, 33(5), 526-552.10.1177/1052562909334092 Search in Google Scholar

27. Saunders, F. C. & Gale, A. W. (2012). Digital or didactic: Using learning technology to confront the challenge of large cohort teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 847-858.10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01250.x Search in Google Scholar

28. Schneider, L. S., & Renner, J. W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(6), 503-517.10.1002/tea.3660170603 Search in Google Scholar

29. Shaw, K. (2001). Designing online learning opportunities, orchestrating experiences and managing learning. Teaching & learning online. Pedagogies for new technologies, 53-66. Search in Google Scholar

30. Stanley, C. A., & Porter, M. E. (2002). Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college faculty. Bolton, Massachusetts: Anker Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

31. Steif, P. S., & Dollár, A. (2009). Study of Usage Patterns and Learning Gains in a Web-based Interactive Static Course. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 321-333.10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01030.x Search in Google Scholar

32. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.10.3102/00346543076001093 Search in Google Scholar

33. Thomas, J. S., Hall, R. H., Philpot, T. A., & Carroll, D. R. (2011). The Effect of Online Videos on Learner Outcomes in a Mechanics of Materials Course. Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education, Vancouver, CA. Search in Google Scholar

34. U.S. Department of Education (2009). Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505824.pdf Search in Google Scholar

35. Yoder, B. L. (2012). Engineering by the Numbers. Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education. San Antonio, TX. Search in Google Scholar

36. Zorn, J., & Kumler, M. (2003). Incorporating active learning in large lecture classes. The California Geographer, 43, 50-54. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo