WIXLIB

Paper ID #34853Face-to-Face and E-learning Styles for Undergraduate EngineeringTechnology Students During COVID-19 PandemicDr. Suleiman M. Obeidat, Texas A&M UniversityDr. Suleiman Obeidat received his Ph. D. in Industrial Engineering from University of Oklahoma in 2008.Dr. Obeidat joined the Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution Department at Texas A&MUniversity in Fall 2015. Dr. Obeidat teaches different courses such as Product Design and Solid Modeling, Materials and Manufacturing, Mechanics for Technologists, Quality Assurance and ManufacturingProcesses. He developed an Undergraduate course for Industrial Distribution Students. That course explains different concepts in materials and manufacturing. Dr. Obeidat’s research focuses on inspection ofmachined surfaces using Coordinate machines (CMM). Dr. Obeidat works on Additive manufacturing ofcomposite materials and nanoparticles. Dr. Obeidat is a reviewer for different journals in manufacturingand measurement. He has written more than 12 journal articles. Recently two papers have been publishedin journal of composites part B and journal of manufacturing processes. Three conference papers havebeen published in NAMRC 46 conference, which was held in June 2018 at Texas A&M University. Another conference paper has been published also in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference for Industry andEducation Collaboration, ASEE 2019.Dr. Jumanah A. Hajjat, Texas A&M UniversityA highly energic and dedicated Ph.D. civil engineering woman with strong teaching skills, research, andproject management. An expert in geotechnical/structural analysis and design. I am committed andresponsible for offering students my expertise to help them in their academic and professional goals. Ihave excellent experience working in a diverse cultural environment.c American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

Face-to-Face and E-Learning Styles for Undergraduate EngineeringTechnology Students During COVID-19 PandemicAbstract: Education has changed dramatically with the surging growth of online learning sincethe COVID-19 pandemic began, and the entire globe has turned away from the classrooms.Teaching has moved to be via digital platforms. With this abrupt shift to digital learning, a concernhas been raised about how this shift will affect worldwide learning. This research aims to studythe impact of the COVID-19 switch on student performance and whether online learning candeliver the same academic student performance as face-to-face. The data of this study wascompiled from three engineering courses taught at the engineering technology department at apublic university in Texas. The complexity of these courses ranges from low, average, and highlevels for courses A, B, and C, respectively. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used tocompare the differences in student performance outcomes of three exams and other gradedassignments. The impact of four learning modalities, involving face-to-face (F2F), synchronous,asynchronous, and mixed (F2F and synchronous), was explored. The results of the overall meanscores show that, for courses B and C, the student performance outcomes are higher in the mixed(F2F and synchronous) and online groups (synchronous and asynchronous groups) than in the F2Fgroup. For course A, there is a significant difference in the overall academic performance of onlinelearning modes compared to F2F. Whereby, in general, the F2F mode deliver a higher level ofstudent performance outcomes than that delivered by mixed and asynchronous groups for thesekinds of courses.Key words: Online teaching; Asynchronous teaching; Synchronous teaching; Studentperformance.1

IntroductionOnline learning has been excessively used in graduate education to accommodate student needsfor a more flexible learning environment and virtual connections (Bower et al. 2015). Onlinelearning enables college students to access their course works with limited financial resources andno relocation costs required (Dai 2019). However, this type of learning is no longer the exceptionfor graduate courses. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began and the whole world has shifted awayfrom being in person in classrooms, online education has been more demanded and worldwidegrowing at undergraduate college and K-12 levels. Whereby education can persist during thepandemic period. Online education creates digital spaces, not only between the students but alsobetween the students and their instructors. Online learning with no demand for the workplacesignificantly impacts the rate of enrollment and more rapidly during the COVID-19. However, theacademic success of the learners still the main concern.Several learning modalities have been developed and promising to persist in the future(Richardson et al. 2017; Seaman et al. 2018). Asynchronous online learning has become anadequate solution for some families who have children who cannot be in the classroom due toconflict in their work commitments (Gillies, 2008). Furthermore, it has helped students with healthproblems or others who cannot join the class at certain times due to bad weather (White et al.2010). With asynchronous learning, college students can complete their education at their ownpace from their remote sites. The students can participate in their online courses with no need tobe online with the instructor in real-time, from their convenient locations. Only students cancommunicate with their peers and instructors through discussion boards and emails. However, lackof social presence due to digital spaces in asynchronous education (Han 2013) and delayedfeedback and response (Karal et al. 2011) decrease student interaction. That decreases studentmotivation and engagement (Hastie et al. 2010; Karal et al. 2011).Synchronous online learning has received more attention than asynchronous onlinelearning and growing worldwide via several digital platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic.With advanced virtual learning tools offered by several video conferencing platforms, the studentscan interact virtually in the synchronous class with their instructor and peers (Watts 2016;Francescucci and Rohani 2019). Web conferencing tools of several platforms make synchronouslearning more functional and create a sense of student attendance in a real-time learningenvironment. Students can share their voices through audio tools, write their questions in chatwindows, and give prompt feedback through poll tools. Synchronous and asynchronous educationcan be successful through participating students in multiple activities to spend the required hoursdigesting the online materials (Nieuwoudt 2020). Synchronous mode offers more interactive andfunctional learning than asynchronous (Skylar 2009). Nevertheless, students still lack to interactphysically with their instructors and peers as the face-to-face class does. A blended synchronouslearning environment (BSLE) offers advantages of physical attendance and virtual learningthrough enabling students to join classroom activities simultaneously via their computers (Boweret al. 2015).This paper presents a study to evaluate student performance outcomes in three differentengineering technology courses taught to undergraduate students at a public university in Texas.2

The study aims to examine whether online learning modes can deliver the same studentperformance as face-to-face (F2F). The data involves the grades of three classes taught over threeconsecutive semesters by two instructors. One semester was before the COVID-19 pandemicperiod. The other two semesters were during the pandemic time when the whole world has movedfrom face-face learning to online learning via digital platforms. The study examined the impact offour different learning modalities; face-to-face, mixed (a mixture of face-to-face and synchronous),synchronous, and asynchronous. The collected data of outcomes of a total of 920 students wereanalyzed using the analysis of variance technique (ANOVA).MethodologyThis research compares the student performance outcomes of three different engineeringtechnology courses taught to undergraduate students at a public university in Texas. The studyinvolves four learning groups. The face-to-face (F2F) group was used as the control group, andthe other three groups were used as treatment groups involving synchronous, asynchronous, andmixed (F2F and synchronous) groups. That is to understand whether different learning modescontribute to the discrepancy in the student performance outcomes compared with those of F2F.The data of 920 students were compiled from the courses over three consecutive semesters fromtwo instructors. The courses were selected with different complexities, ranging from low, average,and high levels for courses A, B, and C, respectively. Instructor 1 taught course A, and courses Band C were taught by instructor 2.The content, of course A, covers concepts and manufacturing processes adopted inindustry. About 80% of the graded activities of this course contain conceptual questions and 20%of math workout problems. The other two classes (B and C) are mechanics courses. Course B isfor sophomore students, which requires new skills to learn the first engineering analysis conceptsat the department. Course C is for junior students. Students who enrolled in this course haveexcellent skills from previous courses. In fall 2019, all courses were taught in F2F mode. Allcourses were taught in the classrooms (F2F) in the first part of the spring 2020 semester. Then theyshifted away from the classrooms to synchronous mode during the COVID-19 pandemic till theend of that semester. In fall 2020, courses A and B were taught asynchronously, and course C wastaught synchronously.In asynchronous learning mode, all lectures of courses A and B were pre-recorded andposted in a time frame on the school blackboard learning system. That enabled students to watchthe videos and study the PowerPoint slides at their own pace from their remote sites. Insynchronous mode, the classes were taught by instructors in real-time via a digital platform. Theplatform assigned by the school was highly equipped with all interactive features required tocommunicate with the students such as video, audio, chat windows, polls, breakrooms, and others.Each course was taught by the same instructor over the three semesters, using the same materialcontents and assessments. Furthermore, all assessments were performed under a controlled andproctored environment in F2F and online modes. The graded assignments over the three semestersin the three courses remained with the same contents, formats, and complexity.3