Comparing Three Instructional Modes for an Engineering Economy Course

This study compares three instructional modes in an “Engineering Economy” course: online, face-to-face (FtF), and flipped. Engineering Economy is a core course in this study and incorporates students with diverse backgrounds from different engineering majors. To discern the relation between student characteristics and teaching modality, an online questionnaire was designed for each mode and distributed over a two-year period. Data was collected and several statistical analyses were conducted to study the relationship between pedagogical delivery modes and various student-based factors such as gender, age, course load, living distance from campus, computer skills, work status, and first language. Students’ performance, persistence, and knowledge self-evaluation were also compared in different modes. The statistical analyses of data at 95% confidence level show that among all the factors, only the ratio of native English speakers, course load and work category differ significantly in different instructional modes. No statistically significant difference was observed between different modes for other factors.

[1]  Scott D. Johnson,et al.  The Influence of Learning Style Preferences on Student Success in Online Versus Face-to-Face Environments , 2002, WebNet.

[2]  Karen Swan,et al.  LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS ONLINE: WHAT THE RESEARCH TELLS US , 2003 .

[3]  Hien Nguyen,et al.  Flipping the Work Design in an industrial engineering course , 2009, 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[4]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Can e-learning replace classroom learning? , 2004, CACM.

[5]  Embry-Riddle Aeronautical,et al.  The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research , 2013 .

[6]  Jon Lim,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in Different Learning Environments. , 2008 .

[7]  Constance H. McLaren.  A Comparison of Student Persistence and Performance in Online and Classroom Business Statistics Experiences , 2004 .

[8]  Kathleen E. Cook,et al.  Comparing the Effectiveness of an Inverted Classroom to a Traditional Classroom in an Upper-Division Engineering Course , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[9]  Zehai Zhou,et al.  A Comparison Of Internet And Classroom Students Performance In The Course Information Society , 2011 .

[10]  R. Bruning.  Cognitive Psychology and Instruction , 1998 .

[11]  Gary Saunders,et al.  A Comparison of Student Performance in an Online Introductory Accounting Course with Traditional Classroom Students , 2008 .

[12]  Barbara Kerr,et al.  The flipped classroom in engineering education: A survey of the research , 2015, 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL).

[13]  Sarah M. Ryan,et al.  THE ENGINEERING LEARNING PORTAL FOR PROBLEM SOLVING: EXPERIENCE IN A LARGE ENGINEERING ECONOMY CLASS , 2004 .

[14]  Qiping Shen,et al.  A comparative study of student performance in traditional mode and online mode of learning , 2007, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ..

[15]  Eric N. Wiebe,et al.  Face-to-Face, Hybrid, or Online?: Issues Faculty Face Redesigning an Introductory Engineering Graphics Course , 2009 .

[16]  Jianyu Dong,et al.  Flipping the Classroom: How to Embed Inquiry and Design Projects into a Digital Engineering Lecture , 2012 .

[17]  David R. McIntyre,et al.  An experiment with WWW interactive learning in university education , 1998, Comput. Educ..

[18]  David M. Levine,et al.  Basic Business Statistics: Concepts and Applications -11/E. , 2009 .

[19]  Rorie N. Harris,et al.  Are Learning Styles Relevant in Web-Based Instruction? , 2003 .

[20]  Thomas A. Litzinger,et al.  "flipping" the classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course , 2009 .

[21]  Jane E. Klobas,et al.  Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..