STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON ONLINE HYBRID LEARNING IN AN UNDERGRADUATE ROBOTICS COURSE

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON ONLINE HYBRID LEARNING IN AN UNDERGRADUATE ROBOTICS COURSE

E. Kyrkjebø, M. Stoelen (2023).  STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON ONLINE HYBRID LEARNING IN AN UNDERGRADUATE ROBOTICS COURSE. 602-613.

Many institutions in higher education worldwide are transforming classes into online courses, or into hybrid courses with students participating both physically in the classroom and digitally through video conferencing software. The latter is a growing trend for multi-campus institutions offering the same courses to multiple campuses. Hybrid courses with synchronous learning activities requires a careful balance when designing student-active learning methods between focusing on the students physically present in the classroom, and the students participating online. In this paper, a set of online hybrid student-active learning activities were implemented for a third year robotics course, and we present student perspectives on online hybrid learning collected from surveying students on what learning tools were perceived as useful for their learn- ing. The results show that students generally appreciate how digital tools can activate students in online hybrid learning, and are especially positive to short lecturing videos, online interactive quizzes, and anonymous digital whiteboards for questions and comments. However, results also show that students do not rate online hybrid learning as equally good when compared to face-to-face lectures, and are ambivalent on whether they achieve the learning outcomes equally well through an online hybrid course design. We believe that the results presented in this paper can be of help to teachers designing student-active learning activities for online hy- brid courses in general, and highlight some of the learning tools that students give good ratings as helpful for engaging a more student-active learning approach to hybrid engineering courses.

Authors (New): 
Erik Kyrkjebø
Martin F. Stoelen
Pages: 
602-613
Affiliations: 
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway
Keywords: 
Online hybrid learning
Student-active learning
Digital learning tools
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 10
CDIO Standard 11
Year: 
2023
Reference: 
Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a mooc: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187-200.: 
Corke, P. (2017). Robotics, vision and control: Fundamental algorithms in matlab (2nd ed.). Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-54413-7: 
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111: 
Goodyear, P. (2002). Teaching online. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 79-101). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7 5: 
Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 1-11.: 
Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 533-541.: 
Kyrkjeb0, E. (2020). A Guide to Student-active Online Learning in Engineering. Modeling, Identification and Control, 41(2), 91-107. doi: 10.4173/mic.2020.2.5: 
Nikolopoulou, K. (2022). Face-to-face, online and hybrid education: University students' opin- ions and preferences. J. Digit. Educ. Technol, 2.: 
Nortvig, A.-M., Petersen, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018). A literature review of the factors influ- encing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 16(1), pp46-55.: 
Olapiriyakul, K., & Scher, J. M. (2006). A guide to establishing hybrid learning courses: Employ- ing information technology to create a new learning experience, and a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(4), 287 - 301. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.001: 
Park, B. (2011). Student perception of a hybrid learning environment for a lab-based construction management course. In Asc int. proc. of the 47th annual conference (pp. 6-9).: 
Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319-8320. doi: 10 .1073/pnas.1407304111: 
Go to top
randomness