Overview
In a review of literature pertaining to the online engineering courses, this report provides findings from academic journals published in the past 10 years. We included literature that are relevant and relatively up-to-date. The findings are categorized into (1) academic integrity, (2) assessments, (3) instructional strategies, (4) outcomes, and (5) platforms (online labs).
Summary of Research
Academic Integrity
- Colwell and Jenks (2005) reported that 75% of students admit to some cheating on online courses. The authors suggested using multiple forms of assessment (papers, written assignments, essay tests, objective tests, etc.), using timed tests, proctored tests, randomized testing, and monitoring a student’s work and grades for sudden unexplained improvement.
- Arnold (2016) examined whether online formative tests are invitations to cheat. The findings suggested that the likelihood of cheating is negatively related to academic progress. Evidence suggested that while cheating in online formative tests may happen, it does not seem to pay off.
...
- Okutsu, DeLaurentis, Brophy, and Lambert (2013) reported that the exam scores of the virtual-world group and the real-world group did not find significant difference between the two groups, indicating that the virtual-world is a feasible platform to teach early engineering courses.
- Potkonjak et al., (2016) provided a well-organized list of online labs for online courses on science, technology and engineering, using four criteria. If designers/faculty consider implementing online labs, this article serves a great starting point.
Suggestion for Implementations
How should this topic be implemented in an online course
References
- Arnold, I. J. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off?. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98-106.
- Colwell, J. L., & Jenks, C. F. (2005, October). Student ethics in online courses. In Frontiers in Education, 2005. FIE'05. Proceedings 35th Annual Conference (pp. T2D-T2D). IEEE.
- Ní Fhloinn, E., & Carr, M. (2017). Formative assessment in mathematics for engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(4), 458-470. doi:10.1080/03043797.2017.1289500
- Canfield, S. L., & Zuccaro, S. G. (2016). Digital homework for kinematics and dynamics of machinery. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 44(2), 165-182. doi:10.1177/0306419016641008
- Elias, A. L., Elliott, D. G., & Elliott, J. A. (2017). Student perceptions and instructor experiences in implementing an online homework system in a large second-year engineering course. Education for Chemical Engineers, 21, 40-49.
- Balascio (2017). Pedagogical Considerations in Use of Online Problem Sets in Technical Courses. Proceedings American Association for Engineering Education. Retrieved from: https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/78/papers/17753/view.
- Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218-237.
- Scott, J., Khoo, E., Peter, M., & Round, H. (2016). Flipped classroom learning in a large introductory undergraduate engineering course. In 27th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education: AAEE 2016 (p. 690). Southern Cross University.
- Lawanto, O., Santoso, H. B., Goodridge, W., & Lawanto, K. N. (2014). Task value, self-regulated learning, and performance in a web-intensive undergraduate engineering course: how are they related?. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 97.
- Okutsu, M., DeLaurentis, D., Brophy, S., & Lambert, J. (2013). Teaching an aerospace engineering design course via virtual worlds: A comparative assessment of learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 60(1), 288-298.
- Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, 309-327.