https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7561-9903
ABSTRACT
Due to the COVID-19, educational institutions fully or partially shifted to online teaching. Hardware-based laboratories presented a major challenge given the online learning environment. Online running of hardware-based laboratory classes using software does not provide students. Online teaching reduces the interaction level between students and demonstrators. As a result, students’ performance and satisfaction were reduced. To address these challenges, this article presents a novel mixed mode delivery approach for undergraduate engineering students. This approach is based on pairing remotely and on-campus students. This article uses a case study to describe the implementation of the proposed approach for a large first-year electronics circuit theory class. Compared to students’ laboratory performance before COVID-19 pandemic (on-campus only laboratories), online students’ laboratory experience was not affected. Their lab performance found to be at 89.64%. Online students gained experience in troubleshooting by their involvement, while on-campus students are connecting the hardware and obtaining measurement results.
1. Introduction
Experimentation in hardware-based engineering laboratories is important and significant for undergraduate engineering students as it plays a significant role in improving their learning experience and practical knowledge (e.g. Feisel & Rosa, Citation2005). Faculties of engineering in most universities have both simulation and hardware-based laboratories that are offered to different engineering disciplines, e.g. mechanical, telecommunication, control, computer, civil, mining, material, and electrical engineering. Through those hardware-based laboratories, students can develop a deep understanding of the theoretical concepts learned during the lectures by applying them in practice to gain hands-on experience in various engineering topics.
Due to the rapid development and growth in the internet and software technologies, remote delivery of engineering laboratories has become an attractive alternative for students (e.g. Almarshoud Citation2011). These remote laboratories are implemented using software (e.g. MATLAB and Multisim) that can either be downloaded onto student’s local machines or accessed remotely (e.g. Esani Citation2010). A study in (e.g. Jaggars Citation2014) showed that students prefer face-to-face over online learning, especially for challenging subjects. Online teaching puts more onus on the student to interact with the instructor, and there are more opportunities for the student not to be fully ‘present’ while the class is ongoing. It is also difficult for the instructor to receive feedback and level of engagement of the online class as compared to a face-to-face class.
Middleton (e.g. Middleton Citation1997) pointed out the important factors that have a significant effect and influence on online learning student experience. This includes contents and material accessibility, and the level of interaction between online students and their instructors.
2. Preliminary study
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 2020, all schools at the University of Wollongong, Australia (UOW) including the School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunication Engineering (SECTE) had to remotely deliver all their courses. The complete transition from face-to-face to online teaching of hardware-based engineering laboratories was challenging. Lab demonstrators had to conduct the experiments using hardware equipment from the lab while communicating with online students via Zoom platform. The aim was to demonstrate the experiment’s setup, procedures and outcomes to online students using physical hardware equipment to compensate for the lack of hands-on experience. While this approach showed some success in transferring hands-on experience to online participating students, we judged that the level of interaction between the students and the demonstrator was below acceptable level.
This was observed by the demonstrators and seconded by the students who participated in the survey that was conducted by UOW for software and hardware-based laboratories at SECTE in the first session of 2020. The survey aimed to evaluate the approach and collect student’s feedback with a total number of 367 student’s responses captured and analysed. The first question asks the students whether any of real-time classes using Zoom, WebEx, and so on have supported their learning, provided them with opportunities for interaction or presented clearly. As shown in , the majority (e.g. 77.7%) of respondents have consistently indicated that real-time online classes supported their learning, provided opportunities for interaction, and are presented clearly.
Figure 1. Comparison of student satisfaction regarding real-time classes for 22 subjects.
The percentage for each question’s category is calculated by dividing the total number of responses in that category by the total number of students who participated in the survey, and then multiplying the result by 100. For example, if 50 students participated in the survey and 20 of them responded ‘Agree’ to a particular question, the percentage of students who agreed would be calculated as 20 divided by 50, multiplied by 100, resulting in 40%. Therefore, the percentage indicates the proportion of students who responded in a particular category for a specific question
show the respondents from 20 students regarding their satisfaction of delivering Power System Analysis (ECTE423) and Power Engineering 1 (ECTE324) subjects in real-time classes via Zoom platform, respectively. The laboratories of these two subjects are hardware-based and were delivered remotely with one demonstrator demonstrating lab experiments to all 20 online students.
Figure 2. Comparison of student satisfaction regarding real-time classes for ECTE423.
Figure 3. Comparison of student satisfaction regarding real-time classes for ECTE324.
During the laboratory session, students used LabVolt software to simulate the experiments and obtain the simulation results, then the demonstrator demonstrated to the students the physical implementation of the experiment using hardware. Students had the opportunity to compare their results with actual measurements obtained by the demonstrator. As shown in , for ECTE423 and ECTE324 subjects, about 35% and 37.5% of students indicated that real-time classes do not provide opportunities for interaction and are not presented clearly. Most of the students also indicated that the level of demonstrators’ presence was low and the interaction among students was minimal. A possible explanation for this is that only one demonstrator was responsible for the hardware experiment and had to facilitate learning to an online class of 20 students. Another reason is that third-year Electrical Power lab is challenging, and more time needs to be spent online rather than face to face in order to grasp the concepts. The level of interaction between students was low as there was only one channel of communication, which is via the demonstrator since the students worked individually.
To overcome the aforementioned limitations and increase students’ satisfaction, during the second session or Spring semester of 2020 (UOW is in Australia in the Southern Hemisphere), we proposed and implemented a different approach based on mixed mode delivery. There was some easing of COVID restrictions and students could come to class in limited numbers. The new approach was implemented in an undergraduate engineering course called Electrical Systems (ENGG104) which includes weekly hardware-based laboratory classes. With this mixed mode delivery approach, students were divided into two major groups. The first group comprised students who were able to physically attend the laboratory (on-campus students), and the second group comprised students who preferred to attend the laboratory online (online students). This has helped us to maintain a smaller number of students inside the lab, hence complying with the social distancing regulations and restrictions that applied at the time.
During the lab session, one or more of the online students were paired with one on-campus student in a separate Zoom breakout room. Therefore, students were able to work in groups in a mixed physical and virtual environment. The on-campus students had a large workbench for themselves and a movable camera. We collected data from the classes in order to compare the efficacy of the proposed mixed mode delivery with previously adopted single-mode online delivery method. The reminder of this article is organised as follows: In section 3, we present the related literature and review-related solutions/proposals adopted by others. Section 4 presents the proposed mixed mode delivery structure. Section 5 evaluates the proposed mixed mode delivery. Section 6 presents the limitations and finally section 7 concludes the article.
3. Related work
Educational institutions across the globe were greatly impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak, the education processes were completely disturbed across all educational levels (schools, university, colleges, and other educational institutions), and remote learning was the only option for millions of students worldwide.
The Chinese government had to deal with the pandemic before anyone else in the world. In early February 2020, China’s Ministry of Education (MOD) issued instructions on the deployment of Higher Education Institutions (HEI) online teaching to enable students to resume their studies remotely using 22 online learning platforms (e.g. Li et al. Citation2020; Ministry of Education Citation2020).
Online teaching based on Problem-Based Learning (PBL) model was adopted by the authors of (e.g. Ping, Fudong, and Zheng Citation2020) in response to COVID 19. In this model, face-to-face classes were replaced with online teaching to ensure continual learning. The survey results showed that the students are satisfied with the new online learning methods and their grades are also improved.
Moreover, a case study on online teaching in higher education was carried out at Peking University (e.g. Bao Citation2020). This study focuses on the effective implementation of instructional strategies to prevent negative learning attitudes and ensure the effectiveness of the online education system. The study recommended five principles of high-impact teaching practice to effectively deliver large-scale online education: appropriate relevance (appropriate and relevant teaching material for online delivery), effective delivery (adjusting teaching base), sufficient support (timely feedback, after-class support), high-quality participation (to ensure students’ class participation) and finally contingency plan preparation (backup plans in case of technical problems).
The authors in (e.g. Dhawan Citation2020) investigated the different aspects of online teaching and highlighted the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges of online teaching. The study showed that online teaching provided a high degree of flexibility in terms of time and location, in addition to the ability to accommodate a higher number of students, wider range of courses/contents and the ability to provide immediate feedback. However, several drawbacks of online teaching were also presented including technical difficulties, time management, and lack of personal/physical attention. To overcome these drawbacks, several improvement opportunities in the education system were unveiled, such as an innovative pedagogical approach. Students’ engagement and adaptation (between online, offline, face-to-face, and other teaching models) were among the challenges facing this type of teaching.
Across the world, to overcome the aforementioned challenges, online learning was implemented based on four general models: Live classes, recorded classes, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) (e.g. Feng et al. Citation2020) learning tools and research & discussion-based learning model. These models were adopted based on different circumstances, e.g. student’s levels and availability, time zone, and available technology. A mixture of two or more models were also implemented, as an example, a live lecture is conducted (via ZOOM for example) to a group of students enrolled in a certain subject. The lecture is recorded and shared with other students who could not join the real-time session.
Along similar lines, e.g. Martínez, Aguilar, and Ortiz (Citation2019), the authors demonstrated the implementation of blended and fully online learning methods in an engineering master’s program (by adding a parallel online group). The aim was to increase the student’s enrolments and satisfactions and to reduce the dropout rate. The results showed that both methods (blended and fully online) increased the students’ enrolments and satisfaction. At the same time, the students’ grades improved significantly. No significant differences were found between the blended and online groups.
Another blended online teaching mode was proposed in (e.g. Chen, Zheng, and Yu Citation2020). This model is based on live broadcasting and MOOC models. The blended model divides the learning process into three stages: stage one is pre-class learning, in which students are expected to do self-study using the available resources provided by their lecturer prior to the lecture time. Stage two is in-class teaching, in which a real-time lecture is delivered to students who are able to interact with each other as well as with their lecturer. Lastly, the after-class consolidating stage takes place, in which compensatory teaching is conducted using ZJOOC platform along with an online assignment. The proposed blended model has been implemented and evaluated across four different courses. The quantitative analysis of the results showed a significant positive correlation between live broadcasting participation and MOOC participation, and for the qualitative aspects, the proposed model achieved a high satisfaction rate from the teachers and students. However, the authors raised an important and valid concern with respect to the effectiveness of experiments conducted through simulation software in engineering disciplines, and they indicated that it is worth thinking how to carry out online experiments to achieve the goal of keeping theory and practice in line.
Based on the above review, several teaching methods and proposals were developed as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, most of these proposals were focused on the theoretical components of the taught courses/subjects (i.e. theoretical lectures), where many of the face-to-face in class lectures were moved online either partially or fully. Furthermore, experimental components (laboratory experiments) of the taught courses/subjects were mostly conducted using simulation software instead of using the actual hardware equipment. However, this did not solve the problem of delivering and conducting the laboratory experiments, as these experiments are meant to be conducted using real hardware equipment in order to achieve the learning outcomes of these experiments. Therefore, resolving this issue became a priority to ensure that the impact of this pandemic is as minimal as possible to students learning and education. Additionally, the aforementioned concern with respect to the effectiveness of experiments conducted through simulation software (e.g. Chen, Zheng, and Yu Citation2020) also motivated this research. The following section presents the UOW mixed-mode delivery structure and model.
4. Mixed-mode delivery structure
For the Electrical Systems Lab work, during normal delivery mode, namely on-campus only, there are between 26 and 32 students working in pairs on a single bench supported by two lab demonstrators who would run the laboratory and address any questions that may arise during the laboratory class. However, with mixed-mode delivery, the participating students are divided into two groups. An on-campus group and an online group. Students either enrol in an online or on-campus session for the same time slot. The two (online & on-campus) sessions are run in parallel to conduct the same experiment on a weekly basis. One laboratory demonstrator is dedicated to handling the on-campus student’s inquiries and questions and another demonstrator is dedicated to working with the online group.
The proposed mixed-mode delivery model provides multiple channels of communication and interaction among the students and lab demonstrators. illustrates the interface between the on-campus and online class during a typical lab session which is the Zoom platform. It is worth mentioning that any similar platform can be used to implement the proposed model. The class structure of the mixed model delivery is capable of maximising the interaction between all participants and will be described in the following sections.
Figure 4. Interface between the on campus and online class during the mixed mode delivery.
4.1. Room and bench setup
As shown in , the laboratory room is set up according to COVID-19 safe work plan considering the 1.5 m social distancing between students and good hygiene practices. At the start of the lab, on-campus students, online students, on-campus demonstrator, and online demonstrator join the Zoom meeting. The on-campus demonstrator then delivers a 10-min introduction about the experiment to on-campus and online students; see . After the introduction, the online demonstrator places all students to the preassigned breakout rooms where every room is shared between one on-campus student and one or more online students.
Figure 5. Laboratory room set-up.
Figure 6. On-campus demonstrator delivering an experiment’s introduction to on-campus and online student.
4.2. Zoom setup and running of laboratory
Each on-campus student is paired with an online student with the aim of interacting and working together towards the completion and understanding of the experimental activities; see . It is important to mention that each on-campus/online student pair is placed in a virtually isolated room from the rest of the class (Zoom breakout rooms). Then, the online demonstrator is responsible for handling each virtual room by visiting them in a sequence or whenever there is a help request notification from a particular virtual room. Furthermore, the laboratory demonstrator who is running the on-campus class could also address a question or provide help to an online student. This interaction of an on-campus laboratory demonstrator with online students could be achieved via the Zoom platform. For instance, when an on-campus student asks for help from the on-campus demonstrator, the online student can also listen to the on-campus demonstrator explanation via his/her on-campus student pair. This flow of information can be reversed when an online student asks for help from the online demonstrator.
Figure 7. Interaction between on-campus and online students.
4.3. Communications during mixed mode delivery
Apart from the communication between students and demonstrators, in the mixed-mode delivery, the two laboratory demonstrators are located in the same room. This enables the two demonstrators to communicate with each other to achieve a better class coordination and ensure a high-quality teaching experience for the students. As a result, we identified four effective communication channels during a mixed-mode delivery, see .
The first channel is the interaction between the online and on-campus students in the breakout room via the Zoom platform.
The second channel is the communication channel between the on-campus demonstrator and the on-campus students.
The third channel is the communication channel between the online demonstrator and the online students accomplished via Zoom.
The fourth channel is the communication between the on-campus demonstrator and the online demonstrator as they are located in the same room.
Figure 8. Communication channels during the mixed-mode delivery.
The aforementioned communication channels could be used by the lab demonstrators to check the students’ progress, resolve any issues and ensure the coordinated function of the mixed mode-class, see . Moreover, students are encouraged to utilise the different communication channels to seek help from any demonstrator in case one of them is occupied. Besides, the on-campus and online students could cooperate, share, and discuss their results. In particular, by using a web camera, the online student can experience the hardware aspects of the experiment via visual inspection of the hardware tasks performed by the on-campus student, see . This is a feature of the mixed-mode delivery that cannot be achieved by delivering hardware-based laboratories only online.
Figure 9. Interaction between on-campus demonstrator and on-campus and online students.
Figure 10. Interaction between on-line demonstrator and on-campus and online students.
5. Evaluation and assessment
Students are required to engage in a number of activities related to their experiments. First, they are expected to record the measured results they obtain during the experiments. This suggests that students are expected to be diligent in performing experiments and accurately recording the data they collect. In addition to recording their results, students are also expected to answer a number of questions for each experiment. This written component of the laboratory work indicates that students are expected to reflect on their experimental findings and provide analysis and interpretation of their results. By answering questions related to their experiments, students can demonstrate their understanding of the underlying scientific principles and how they apply to their specific experiments. Furthermore, students are required to compare their obtained measured results to simulated and calculated results. This type of comparison can help students identify discrepancies or errors in their measurements and provide a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts being studied. Finally, the lab book that students use to record their work is marked by the lab demonstrator at the end of each experiment. This suggests that students are expected to take their laboratory work seriously and produce high-quality work that is worthy of evaluation and feedback.
To assess the students’ satisfaction and the effectiveness of the proposed novel mixed-mode delivery method, a survey was conducted with 163 responses from both online and on-campus students enrolled in ENGG104 during Spring session in 2020 (which is a 45.6% of all students in the subject). The survey is divided into three distinct parts. The first part was conducted for both online and on-campus students with the aim of evaluating their overall satisfaction regarding the laboratory’s set-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. The second part of the survey was only directed towards online students and evaluated their interaction with their on-campus student pairs, the laboratory demonstrators as well as their level of understanding as far as the hardware aspect of the subject is concerned. Finally, the third part of the survey was completed by on-campus student only, assessing and measuring their satisfaction regarding their interaction with the online student pairs, the online and on-campus laboratory demonstrators and how having an online pair affects their learning experience. The following sections present and analyse the survey results.
5.1. Joint experience: online and on-campus students
The student evaluation scores indicate that 69.3% of the students were satisfied with the transition from online only to mixed-mode delivery of hardware-based laboratories as shown in . On-campus students were asked if they have any concern about the lab setup according to developed COVID-19 plan including social distancing between students. shows that 62% of the on-campus students felt safe working in a team under social distancing restrictions. Moreover, depicts students’ satisfaction regarding the used communication equipment to communicate with their partners. We see that about 89% of the students found the provided communication means, e.g. individual camera and microphone, adequate to perform the experiment. Some feedback examples received from online students via emails are quoted as follows:
Figure 11. Comparison of student satisfaction regarding mixed mode delivery.
Figure 12. Comparison of student satisfaction regarding the implemented COVID-19 plan.
Figure 13. Comparison of students’ satisfaction regarding the used equipment for communication between students.
Personally, this has been a great experience for myself and my teammate as we continue on in this challenging but educational experience
My lab partner Nellie, that has been attending the university for the labs whilst I have been at home for the online component has had its challenges with visualisation of the breadboard making process through online discussion and camera however as the labs have gone on as a team, we have learnt the strengths we both have and have been able to complete the tasks in a timely fashion.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of communication between students and demonstrators was high. As shown in , 74.2% of students were satisfied with the level of communication with online and on-campus demonstrators, indicating that the proposed mixed-mode delivery method provides an effective communication channel between the online/on-campus student pairs and demonstrators. Having one online student with one on-campus students provided more interaction time between students as well as an effective interaction time slot with online and on-campus demonstrators when they randomly visit the breakout rooms or are being called by one of the two students.
Figure 14. Comparison of student satisfaction regarding the level of communication with lab demonstrators.
5.2. Online students
To further evaluate the effectiveness of the mixed-mode delivery, the satisfaction and learning experience of online students paired with on-campus students who conducted hardware experiment was examined. As shown in , 92.6% of the online students had enough interaction time with their on-campus student pairs. This indicates that students, despite being online, managed to interact constructively towards the completion of the experiment. This also demonstrates that the on-campus students embraced their online student pairs and performed the experiment as a team. This is evident by one of the online students’ comment.
Figure 15. Comparison of students’ satisfaction regarding interaction time with their on-campus student pairs.
For me personally I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience, as my teammate have been extremely supportive and helpful throughout the process.
depict the students’ satisfaction regarding interaction time with online and on-campus demonstrators, respectively. The received responses from 68 online students show that the communication and the interaction time between online students and both online and on-campus demonstrators were successful. A comment obtained from a student was
Figure 16. Comparison of students’ satisfaction regarding interaction time with their online demonstrators.
Figure 17. Comparison of students’ satisfaction regarding interaction time with their on-campus demonstrators.
We have been able to discuss in great lengths how each experiment work and complete them through discussion and problem solving.
Results show that 86.8% of online students were satisfied with the interaction with online demonstrator, whereas 52.9% also interacted efficiently with the on-campus demonstrator. Another comment from online student was
The classes have had the full support from the tutors at the university for both online and on campus, with the availability to call on a tutor either online or in class with a prompt response and insightful assistance.
It is worth noting that the extra communication channel available to the online students via their on-campus student pairs allowed them to utilise the presence of the on-campus demonstrator, which could be beneficial in case the online demonstrator is occupied by another student in a different group.
One of the main objectives of the proposed mixed mode delivery is to enable the online students not only to observe on-campus students performing the hardware part of the experiment but also to incorporate them in the process of building, testing and debugging electrical circuits. As shown in , this objective was met, with 88.2% of the online students feeling that being paired with on-campus, helped them to better understand the hardware aspect of the experiment. As quoted by online student
Figure 18. Comparison of students’ satisfaction regarding their understanding of hardware when paired with an on-campus student.
The idea of being paired or grouped with a person on‐campus, who is physically completing the experiments makes me, as an online student, feel like I’m there participating
This is of great significance, as the mixed-mode delivery ensures that the online students are gaining practical skills as compared to the case of an online only hardware-based laboratory, hence reinforcing the learning objectives of the subject. However, there is a small percentage of 4.4% believing that mixed mode delivery did not promote their understanding of the hardware. This can be attributed to the fact that several online students were not given enough attention by their on-campus student pairs. A small number of on-campus students did not want to interact with the online student and were not very helpful for their online student pairs.
5.3. On-campus students
The satisfaction of 119 on-campus students was also evaluated to assess how the presence of the online student pair affected their learning experience. shows that 79% of on-campus students managed to interact and communicate with their online student pairs, even though they had the additional task of the construction and testing of the electrical circuit.
Figure 19. Comparison of students’ satisfaction regarding interaction time with their online student pairs.
In addition, 85.3% of on-campus students claimed that they had enough interaction time with the online demonstrator and 89% had enough interaction time with the on-campus demonstrator, see . We can conclude that the communication channels between the on-campus students and both on-campus and online demonstrators worked effectively.
Figure 20. I have enough interaction time with the online demonstrator.
Figure 21. Comparison of students’ satisfaction regarding interaction time with their on-campus demonstrators.
Moreover, as shown in % of on-campus students believe that the mixed mode delivery did not contribute to their understanding. On the other hand, 59.8% of the on-campus students believe that their online pair contributed to their understanding of the concepts of the experiments. This percentage of students prefers to work in a team as this increases their confidence and performance during the experiment.
Figure 22. Comparison of students’ satisfaction regarding their understanding of experiment concept when paired with an online student.
It has been observed that there is a correlation between the subjective experiences reported in the surveys and the grades achieved for the laboratory sessions. Specifically, students who reported more positive subjective experiences, such as greater engagement and enjoyment of the laboratory work, tended to achieve higher grades in the corresponding laboratory sessions. Conversely, students who reported more negative subjective experiences tended to achieve lower grades. This correlation is an interesting finding that provides valuable insights into the learning process. This suggests that the way students perceive, and experience laboratory sessions have an impact on their performance and achievement. By understanding how students experience laboratory sessions, subject coordinators can adjust the curriculum and teaching methods to enhance student engagement and motivation, ultimately leading to better academic outcomes.
5.4. Students’ lab performance
In this section, a comparison of the students’ overall lab performance in Spring 2020 (during COVID-19 pandemic), Spring 2018 and 2019 (before COVID-19 pandemic) is provided. We also compare the lab performance of online students with the on-campus students’ lab performance. shows the performance of ENGG104 students in 2018, 2019 and 2020. In 2018 and 2019, there were 401 and 407 enrolled students: respectively. In 2020, 362 students were enrolled in ENGG104, and the major difference was the inclusion of online laboratory classes for students who were unable to be on-campus. The students’ lab performance in 2020 (during COVID-19) was 87.6% which was higher than students’ performance in 2018 (e.g. 84.6%) when there was no COVID-19 pandemic, and all students were conducting their experiments on-campus. Moreover, in Spring 2020 (during COVID-19), the students’ laboratory performance was reduced by 5.72% as compared to Spring 2019 (before COVID-19). We can see that the 2020 performance is in between the performance of 2018 and 2019 and hence we can conclude that it is within the normal range of student performance and hence the impact on results due to this delivery mode has been minimal. Moreover, shows the lab performance of 148 on-campus students and 180 online students. As shown, the average lab mark of 180 online students was 89.64% and for 150 on-campus students, it was was 93.3%. We can speculate that the on-campus students gain a better understanding of the lab content as they were physically doing the experiments and hence their performance is higher than online students. However, the achieved 89.64% is a high percentage and is good evidence that the interaction between online and on-campus students to complete the hardware task has a positive impact on the overall understanding of the experiment.
Figure 23. Comparison of students’ laboratory performance before and during COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure 24. On-campus and online students’ laboratory performance before during COVID-19 pandemic.
6. Limitations
Managing the change in running the labs for on-campus students by introducing the interaction with online students via Zoom platform was a challenging task. To that end, several limitations have been identified as outlined below:
Technical challenges: Online students dropping out due to internet problems from their end. Video recording of experiments is performed to allow students to watch them in case they missed some parts.
Keeping online students engaged and contributing: Student’s engagements is considered as one of the major challenges that face teachers and educators. This challenge is even more significant when it comes to engaging online students. To overcome this, students were provided with a simulation software which can imitate the hardware experiments. Laboratory manuals were also updated to reflect any changes between hardware and software implementations. Both on-campus and online students had to work on every task in parallel, such that they can compare and discuss the results obtained through both hardware and software implementations. This encourages a continuous interaction between on-campus and online students and keeps them engaged and motivated.
Hands on experience: Although online students were able to pick up hardware experience through their interaction with on-campus students, they were unable to practice the physical implementations of these experiments. This makes their hands-on experience incomplete. Their level of confidence in the use of hardware equipment was low compared to on-campus students who used the physical equipment. With social distancing rules and regulations limiting the laboratory capacity, it was not possible to get all the students to do the experiments on campus. To overcome this limitation, we allowed enrolled students to swap between online and on-campus whenever possible, such that social distancing is maintained. For example, a pair of two students can alternate between online and on campus. This allowed all students to have a consistent level of confidence and experience. It also allowed them to build up resilience and be more flexible. As for the students who were unable to attend the on-campus laboratories (i.e. students who are overseas or in a different state), they were given the option to repeat some of the experiments upon their return under the supervision of lab demonstrators. This would boost their hands on experience and increase their confidence. In future, for low-risk experiments, a lab kit with all required experiment components can be delivered to online students by the university so that they can physically set up the experiment and compare their measured results with their on-campus pairs.
Time zone difference: The time difference between Australia and other countries such as China, the United Arab Emirates and India was one of the limitations of running mixed mode delivery. This limitation can be addressed by scheduling the mixed mode delivery lab classes during the evening to make it more feasible for students around the world to join their lab on time.
7. Conclusion
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several aspects of traditional face-to-face learning practices such as class structures, group-oriented assignments/projects, and student assessment to name but a few, are drastically changing to adapt to the new paradigm of remote learning. One of the biggest challenges is faced by universities and educators, in the attempt to accommodate hardware-based laboratories in a remote fashion. To that end, in this paper, a novel mixed-mode teaching approach is proposed and implemented that enabled hardware-based laboratories to seamlessly transition to the new online learning environment. The implemented mixed-mode delivery method is targeted towards undergraduate engineering laboratories where the class is divided into two parts, namely online and on-campus. Moreover, the class is further divided into virtual rooms where in each room there is a pair of students, with one located online and one on campus. The laboratory is supervised by two lab demonstrators, with one being online and the other on campus. The ‘glue’ of the new mixed-mode class structure is the online platform Zoom. Each pair of students in the virtual-breakout rooms is cooperating with the aim of completing the laboratory tasks as a team. The hardware-based tasks are performed by the on-campus student, while the online student can interact with via a webcam and a microphone.
The mixed-mode delivery was implemented to an undergraduate engineering course called Electrical Systems which involves simulating, building, and troubleshooting electrical circuits. The effectiveness of the new delivery method as well as the structure of the mixed mode class was assessed using a satisfaction and experience survey answered by both on-campus and online students. The satisfaction regarding the laboratory set-up was high, with both online and on-campus students scoring 89%. Furthermore, the interaction between students and demonstrators fluctuated at high levels with a satisfaction percentage of more than 80%, apart from the case of communication between online students and on-campus demonstrators which was 52.9%. In addition, it was found that 88.2% of the online students and 59.8% of the on-campus students considered the breakout room interaction beneficial while working in hardware-based tasks of the experiments. To further evaluate the novel mixed-mode approach, the laboratory performance of the students before and during the COVID-19 pandemic was taken into consideration. It was found that during the transition from face-to-face to mixed-mode delivery, the lab performance of the students was not affected as indicated by the following scores 84.6% (2018-before COVID), 93.3% (2019-before COVID) and 87.6% (2020-during COVID).
To conclude, the improvements in the proposed mixed-mode delivery are manyfold. Firstly, it is of great importance that students were given the chance to interact with their peers during the current distant learning circumstances. Additionally, the online students are given the opportunity to experience, through their on-campus peers and the laboratory set up, the hardware which would have been impossible in an online only scenario. The new mixed-mode class structure is capable of satisfying the learning objectives of hardware-related tasks in an online environment and can provide a smooth transition from the traditional learning and teaching methods to the new online learning reality.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Faisel Tubbal
Faisel Tubbal (M’15, SM’20) received the B.E. degree from the college of Electronic Technology, Tripoli, Libya, in 2004, the M.S. degrees in engineering management and Telecommunication Engineering both from the University of Wollongong, in 2012 and 2013, respectively. He has also received a PhD in telecommunication engineering from the University of Wollongong in 2017. His Ph.D. thesis was entitled S-band Planar Antenna Designs for CubeSat Communications.His research interests include antenna designs for CubeSat applications, wearable antennas, antenna designs using metamaterials, Metasurface antennas and metamaterials. Faisel as been with the School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Wollongong since 2012.
Raad Raad
Raad Raad (Member, IEEE) received the Bachelor of Engineering degree (Hons.) in electri[1]cal engineering and the master’s degree from the Switched Networks Research Centre, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, in 1997, and the Ph.D. degree in neuro-fuzzy logic admission control in cellular mobile networks, in 2006. Since 2004, he has been with the School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Wollongong, where he works as the Deputy Head of the School. His cur[1]rent research interests include wireless communications, CubeSat, the IoT, and antenna design. He received an Australian Postgraduate Award that was matched by Telstra Research Laboratories. He received a scholarship from the Motorola Australian Research Centre in the later part of his degree.
Nidhal Odeh
Nidhal Odeh received his Ph.D. in Telecommunications Engineering in 2014 from the University of Technology Sydney, he also holds a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Electronics Engineering (Communications) from the Arab American University and University Putra Malaysia in 2005 and 2007 respectively. He is currently a lecturer in the School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Wollongong. He also holds a position of patent examiner at the Australian patent office (IP Australia) since 2012. His research and commercial interests include wireless communications, machine learning and neural networks, wireless sensor network and body area network.
Panagiotis Ioannis Theoharis
Panagiotis Ioannis Theoharis (Graduate Student Member, IEEE) was bornin Athens, Greece, in 1993. He received the B.Eng. degree (Hons.) in telecommunications engineering from the University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, in 2018, where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree under the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. His research interests include antenna design for CubeSat applications, reconfigurable antennas, reflectarray antennas, and wearable antennas.
References
- Almarshoud, A. 2011. “The Advancement in Using Remote Laboratories in Electrical Engineering Education: A Review.” European Journal of Engineering Education 36 (5): 425–433. doi:10.1080/03043797.2011.604125.
- Bao, W. 2020. “COVID -19 and Online Teaching in Higher Education: A Case Study of Peking University.” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2 (2): 113–115. doi:10.1002/hbe2.191.
- Chen, Y., Y. Zheng, and T. Yu. 2020. “Construction and Implementation of Blended Online Teaching Mode Based on Live Broadcasting and MOOC.” 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Educational Informatization (CSEI), 260–263. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9142475
- Dhawan, S. 2020. “Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis.” Journal of Educational Technology Systems 49 (1): 5–22. doi:10.1177/0047239520934018.
- Esani, M. 2010. “Moving from Face-To-Face to Online Teaching.” American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science 23 (3): 187–190. doi:10.29074/ascls.23.3.187.
- Feisel, L. D., and A. J. Rosa. 2005. “The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education.” Journal of Engineering Education 94 (1): 121–130. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x.
- Feng, X.-L., X.-C. Hu, K.-Y. Fan, and T. Yu. 2020. “A Brief Discussion About the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on Teaching in Colleges and Universities of China.” International Conference on E-Commerce and Internet Technology (ECIT), 167–170. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9134302.
- Jaggars, S. S. 2014. “Choosing Between Online and Face-To-Face Courses: Community College Student Voices.” The American Journal of Distance Education 28 (1): 27–38. doi:10.1080/08923647.2014.867697.
- Li, L., M. Lin, X. Wang, P. Bao, and Y. Li. 2020. “Preparing and Responding to 2019 Novel Coronavirus with Simulation and Technology-Enhanced Learning for Healthcare Professionals: Challenges and Opportunities in China.” BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning 6 (4): 196–198. doi:10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000609.
- Martínez, P. J., F. J. Aguilar, and M. Ortiz. 2019. “Transitioning from Face-To-Face to Blended and Full Online Learning Engineering Master’s Program.” IEEE Transactions on Education 63 (1): 2–9. doi:10.1109/TE.2019.2925320.
- Middleton, A. J. 1997. “How Effective is Distance Education.” International Journal of Instructional Media 24 (2): 133. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/85420/.
- Ministry of Education. The People’s Republic of China, MOE issues instructions for deployment of HEI, Accessed September 6, 2020. Retrieved from http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/202002/t20200208_419136.html
- Ping, Z., L. Fudong, and S. Zheng. 2020. “Thinking and Practice of Online Teaching Under COVID-19 Epidemic.” 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Educational Informatization (CSEI), 165–167. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9142533.