Advertisement

Teaching and Learning Microbiology for Engineers in a Digital World: The Case of the FIT Courses at the Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico

  • Josefina Castillo-Reyna
  • Rebeca M. García-García
  • Alicia Ramírez-Medrano
  • Maribell Reyes-Millán
  • Blanca R. Benavente-Vázquez
  • Claudia D. Chamorro-Urroz
  • Jorge Membrillo-HernándezEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 916)

Abstract

The availability of online courses has increased dramatically; however, the effectiveness of online teaching remains uncertain. The Tecnologico de Monterrey has implemented the Tec21 educational model that includes online teaching with the modality of the FIT courses (Flexibility, Interaction and Technology), a type of well-designed courses using the CANVAS web-based platform and using ZOOM as a tool for communication with students. To compare the objective learning outcomes between a FIT course and a face-to-face course (Microbiology for Engineering), an analysis was made between these two types of courses, with the same or different instructor. Our results clearly indicate that the grades of the students enrolled in the FIT groups were higher than those of the classroom courses. These results were confirmed when the historical record files of both types of teaching were examined. Satisfaction surveys however revealed that students prefer face-to-face courses to online courses. Our data implies that it is necessary to work more on the tools of the distance-learning courses to make them extremely attractive and interesting for students.

Keywords

Learning Online teaching Traditional classes FIT courses 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We deeply acknowledge all the personnel of the School of Engineering and Sciences and the Department of Digital Programs of the ITESM for their support throughout all the steps of this experimental set up.

References

  1. 1.
    Hansen, J.D., Reich, J.: Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science 350, 1245–1248 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., Jones, K.: Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies, p. xvi, xvii. US Department of Education. Office of Planning Evaluation, and Policy Development. Policy and Program Studies Service (2010). ED-04-CO-0040Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Membrillo-Hernández, J., et al.: Challenge based learning: the case of sustainable development engineering at the Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico City campus. In: Auer, M., Guralnick, D., Simonics, I. (eds) Teaching and Learning in a Digital World, ICL 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 715. Springer (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73210-7_103
  4. 4.
    Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., McConnell, S., Graham, M.: Do no harm: a comparison of the effects of on-line vs. traditional delivery media on a science course. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 10, 257–265 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biel, R., Brame, C.J.: Traditional versus online biology courses: connecting course design and student learning in an online setting. J. Microbiol. Biology Educ. 17, 417–422 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen, I.E., Seaman, J.: On-line report card: tracking online education in the United States (Rep.) Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C) (2016). http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-education-united-states-2015
  7. 7.
    Barbeau, M.L., Johnson, M., Gibson, C., Rogers, K.A.: The development and assessment of an online microscopic anatomy laboratory course. Anat. Sci. Educ. 6, 246–256 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collins, M.: Comparing web, correspondence, and lecture versions of a second-year, non-major biology course. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 31, 21–27 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson, M.: Introductory biology online: assessing outcomes of two student populations. J. College Sci. Teach. 31, 312–317 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    King, P., Hildreth, D.: Internet courses: are they worth the effort? J. College Sci. Teach. 31, 112–115 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lunsford, E., Bolton, K.: Coming to terms with the online instructional revolution: a success story revelaed through action research. Bioscene 32, 12–16 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siemens, G., Gasevic, D., Dawson, S.: Preparing for the digital university: a review of the history and current state of distance, blended and online learning 97, 120 (2015). http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf
  13. 13.
    Somenarain, L., Akkaraju, S., Gharbaran, R.: Student perceptions and learning outcomes in asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments in a biology course. MERLOT J. Online Teach. Learn. 6, 353–356 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reuter, R.: Online versus in the classroom: student success in a hands-on lab class. Am. J. Distance Educ. 23, 151–162 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josefina Castillo-Reyna
    • 1
  • Rebeca M. García-García
    • 1
  • Alicia Ramírez-Medrano
    • 1
  • Maribell Reyes-Millán
    • 2
  • Blanca R. Benavente-Vázquez
    • 2
  • Claudia D. Chamorro-Urroz
    • 2
  • Jorge Membrillo-Hernández
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Escuela de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Tecnológico de MonterreyMonterreyMexico
  2. 2.Dirección de Educación Digital, Tecnológico de MonterreyMonterreyMexico

Personalised recommendations