Characteristics of Engineering Education
A DDITIONAL I SSUES
In addition to the foundational factors in engineering education such as design, experiential learning, and engineering labs, the literature contains studies exploring faculty perceptions of additional issues related to engineering education and online learning that may related to acceptance and adoption of online learning technologies. This research explores each in the context of the technology acceptance models and faculty perceptions of usefulness.
Learning Outcomes
A metric related to the faculty perception of usefulness of online learning is the comparison of learning outcomes to traditional course delivery methods. Given the differences between online and traditional teaching methods, it seems reasonable to question the effectiveness of online education methods. A number of studies in different disciplines have demonstrated that distance and online delivery methods are at least as or more effective than face-to-face methods in terms of student outcomes. However,
educator perceptions do not always reflect this finding, with some faculty still reporting that online learning is not effective as face-to-face (Allen & Seaman, 2014).
In a review of research on online learning across various academic disciplines, Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) reported that there are no significant differences in various measures of learning outcomes (test scores, course grades, performance ratings, etc.) across various areas of study (nursing, teachers, special needs), indicating from one perspective that online instruction is at least as effective as face-to-face or traditional teaching methods. This study also noted that, from the perspective of Clark (1983), the delivery media may not be the only variable in a comparison of online and face-to-face course delivery, as instructional methods also change relative to the medium, and evidence was found that students employed different learning strategies in online and face-to-face courses.
In a large scale quantitative study comparing student course grades across a number of academic disciplines (civil engineering, communications, computer science, management, nursing, psychology, etc.), Abdous & Yoshimura (2010) also found that there was no significant difference in learning outcomes between on-campus face-to-face courses and courses delivered remotely, either via live online video streaming or via satellite broadcast.
The literature in online engineering education provides similar results, reporting that test scores and measures of satisfaction were comparable in face-to-face and online courses (Bourne, Harris, & Mayadas, 2005).
A study by Barbour (2007) of online faculty and course developers of asynchronous courses identified a set of design factors that are important in delivering a successful online course, including: pre-planning; simple navigation; diverse media for content, including text, visuals, appropriate multimedia, and interactive elements;
personalization; summaries of content; clear instructions and expectations; and developing the overall course at the appropriate level for the target audience.
Non-Traditional Learners
The concept of teaching at a distance, or distance education, has a long history. Distance education has been described as the use of technology “to deliver instruction and learning freed from the geographical and time constraints associated with face-to- face instruction” (Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008, p. 626). Many different technologies have been employed in this manner over time, from printed books and educational materials sent through the mail, to radio and audio recordings, to live and recorded television, and now to the ‘fourth wave’ of distance education – computer and internet technology, the preferred mode of distance education (Lease & Brown, 2009).
As student demographics have changed, many colleges and universities have employed various distance education strategies to expand their offerings to ‘non- traditional’ markets, including students that are older, married or with families, or working part- or full-time. Due to these various demands, many of these students are not able to attend on-campus courses during regular course times. They require flexibility in time and place, and institutions are working to address these needs by offering courses online. A key advantage of online learning is that courses can be available when needed and accessible from anywhere by any number of learners. (Bourne, Harris, & Mayadas, 2005; Lease & Brown, 2009).
Engineering is no different. The ability for students to remotely access engineering courses and programs when they are not available at a local institution, or for a working student to be able to take a course or earn an engineering degree online without having to physically attend a class will help address the need to educate more engineers
(Bourne, Harris, & Mayadas, 2005; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012).
The Language of Engineering – Mathematics and Graphics
Mathematics has been referred to as the “language of engineering” (Dym et al., 2005, p.108). The critical component of engineering design also requires the ability to render drawings of the structures, items, or systems being designed. A practical matter that may influence the capability to implement online engineering courses is not only the ability to represent mathematics, graphics, and engineering design drawings easily in both course materials and the work of the students, but also faculty understanding and perceptions of this capability. While rendering images and generating mathematical equations for course materials has been made simpler via equation editors and graphic design tools, the ability to produce and communicate such critical work products is still more difficult than in a face-to-face, pencil-and-paper class (Bourne et al., 2005). Branoff and Totten (2006) they describe challenges engineering instructors face, such as finding appropriate ways to demonstrate design software, preparing graphic intensive materials, and determining adequate methods to evaluate student work.