Abstract
Higher education has been undergoing a global transformation since the 1990s, resulting in changes, induced and modulated by several factors. The most important of those changes include the significant technological development of the Internet and handheld devices, along with the growing demand for educational program assessments by accreditation bodies and funding/government agencies. The involvement of third-party resources (e.g., book publishers) and technology (e.g., interactive SMART Board) have induced further positive influences within higher education and advanced the learning experience to the next level. These factors and others have inspired many innovative teaching proposals to improve the learning experience and to engage students in class more effectively. This article proposes an interactive learning approach for teaching engineering curriculum. The proposed teaching model takes advantage of the blended learning approach in the form of flipped classrooms to complement the learning experience in engineering design courses. The flipped classroom is focused on moving some components of the traditional face-to-face lecture out of class. With a flipped classroom, students can prepare for class by interacting with provided resources to reduce lecture time and allow more engagement in class. This work also demonstrates how to apply constructivism and conversation theories to enhance learning in a blended learning environment. The teaching method is carried out by developing an interactive module for each lecture and a mini-lecture video, which is provided to review materials before class or as a lecture recording. Each lecture module consists of pre-class brainstorming questions, a lecture theory, and of practice exercises, which are arranged in a series of guided instructional solution steps. The lecture module will be delivered to students using interactive presentation software that engages students in class activities. The effectiveness of this teaching method is demonstrated through a quantitative assessment of program learning outcomes (PLO) before and after applying the method. Assessment of learning outcomes indicates an average improvement from 3.9 to 4.4 on a scale of 1–5.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
WebCT is a tool that provides and facilitates the creation of advance course tools and interactive resources, such as online testing/quizzes, lecture tutorials, course interactive exercises, and case-study analysis.
A taxonomy is a classification system, which describes, identifies, and classifies groups.
Taxonomy of education objectives is commonly referred to as Bloom’s taxonomy, which is edited by Benjamin Bloom and published in 1956.
Application of constructivism theory here implies that blended learning is not only providing video content, but an active learning process involving students’ interaction with resources provided, with each other, and, most important, in class activities.
Previous knowledge in the context of prerequisite courses. Some steps in the exercises are based on knowledge gained in previous courses but applied in a new problem setting.
The software is not the main innovative idea, but implementing it as a tool in this lecture is important.
No study was found in the literature suggesting the use of this software in education or implemented in any course.
SlideDog is commonly recognized as an audience respond system (AR).
This assessment is the official course assessment using assessment tools provided by the department and reported in the department assessment report and in the program accreditation report.
ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology).
Outcome A: Ability to apply knowledge of math, science, and engineering.
Outcome C: Ability to design and evaluate building engineering systems, components, or processes to meet desired needs.
Outcome E: Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
Outcome K: Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
An SR of 3.9 indicates students’ assignments average results of 78%, while a score of 4.4 reflects an average coursework result of 88%.
Engineering design courses are more slanted toward applied engineering design process and highly oriented toward program capstone design courses. Therefore, the evaluation of teaching method using students’ written work is generally perceived among educators to be more reliable as evidence of students’ content learning than classroom observations or qualitative surveys.
Some students, especially females, believe that it is not socially acceptable to wear eyeglasses, as this would be against social norms.
Closing the loop (CL) typically involves analyzing collected data and modifying strategies accordingly for better achievement of measurable objectives. CL is an important component of course assessment.
References
Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2014). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336.
Adeli, H., & Kim, H. (2000). Web-Based interactive courseware for structural steel design using Java. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 15(2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/0885-9507.00180.
Al-Huneidi, A., & Schreurs, J. (2013). Constructivism Based Blended Learning in Higher Education. Information Systems, E-learning, and Knowledge Management Research Communications in Computer and Information Science, 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35879-1_74.
Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., & Vines, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00454.x.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE.ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
Broudy, H. S. (1963). Historic exemplars of teaching method. In N. I. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research teaching (pp. 1–43). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Carbonaro, M., King, S., Taylor, E., Satzinger, F., Snart, F., Drummond, J., et al. (2008). Integration of e-learning technologies in an interprofessional health science course. Canada: University of Alberta.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin 39: 3–7. ED 282 491, 6 pp, MF-01, PC-01.
Elhouar, S. (2005). Teaching steel design on the web: The blackboard experience. American Society for Engineering Education. April 1–2, 2005—Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois. 2005 IL/IN Sectional Conference. Session B-T3-3.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increase student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 11(23), 8410–8415.
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2009). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: enhancing academic practice. New York: Routledge.
Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001.
Good, T. L. (2008). 21st century education: A reference handbook. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Oigara, J. N. (2014). Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Koretsky, M., & Brooks, B. J. (2012). Student attitudes in the transition to an active-learning technology. Chemical Engineering Education, 46(1), 41–49.
Marcia. (2015). Introduction to Adult Learning. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from http://agelesslearner.com/intros/adultlearning.html.
Miranda, V., & Park, T. (1998). Representation of architectural concepts in the study of precedents: A concept-learning system. Automation in Construction, 8(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-5805(98)00068-5.
Piaget, J., Kagan, J., & Inhelder, B. (2000). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., & Schloss, P. J. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14–18.
Simon, B., Anderson, R., Hoyer, C., & Su, J. (2004). Preliminary experiences with a tablet PC based system to support active learning in computer science courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 213. https://doi.org/10.1145/1026487.1008053.
Singh, C. P. (2006). Introduction to educational technology. New Delhi: Lotus.
Stones, E., & Morris, S. (1972). Teaching practice: Problems and perspectives: A reappraisal of the practical element in teaching preparation. London: Methuen.
Wang, B. T., Teng, C. W., & Chen, H. T. (2015). Using iPad to facilitate english vocabulary learning. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(2), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2015.v5.484.
Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2015). Teaching engineering. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Wilkins, B., & Barrett, J. (2000). The virtual construction site: A web-based teaching/learning environment in construction technology. Automation in Construction, 10(1), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-5805(00)00075-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alkhatib, O.J. An interactive and blended learning model for engineering education. J. Comput. Educ. 5, 19–48 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0097-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0097-x