Learning strategy and students' perception of different learning options in a blended learning environment: A case study of a first year engineering course

CSEDU 2013 - Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 321-330

  Schmidt, B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Active Learning; Blended Learning; Engineering Dynamics; Learning Styles; Students' Satisfaction

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE LEARNING; BLENDED LEARNING; ENGINEERING DYNAMICS; LEARNING STYLE; STUDENTS' SATISFACTION;

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84887158117     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. Bourne, J., Harris, D. and Mayadas, F., 2005. Online engineering education: learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), pp. 131-146
2. Boyle, T., 2005. A dynamic systematic method for developing blended learning. Education, Communication & Information, 5 (3), pp. 221-232.
3. Brodie, L.M., 2009. eProblem-based learning: problem-based learning using virtuel teams, European Journal of Engineering Education, 34 (6), pp. 497-509.
4. Cortizo, J.L., et al., 2010. Blended learning applied to the study of Mechanical Couplings in engineering. Computers & Education, 54 (4), pp. 1006-1019.
5. Dzakiria, H., Che, S. M. and Bakar, H. A., 2006. Moving forward with blended learning as a pedagogical alternative to traditional classroom learning, Malaysian Online Journal of Intsructional Technology, 3 (1), pp. 11-18.
6. El-Zein, A., Langrish, T., Ballam, N., 2009. Blended Teaching and Learning of Computer Programming Skills in Engineering Curricula, Advances in Engineering Education, 1 (3), pp. 1-18.
7. Fang, N., 2009. Electronic classroom response system for an engineering dynamics course: student satisfaction and learning outcomes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25 (5), pp. 1059-1067.
8. Felder, R.M. and Brent, R., 2005. Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering, 94 (1), pp. 57-72
9. Fies, C. and Marshall, J., 2006. Classroom response system: a review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, pp. 101-109.
10. Fitzpatrick, J., Cronin, K. and Byrne, E., 2010. Is attending lectures still relevant in engineering education?, European Journal of Engineering Education, 36 (3), pp. 301-312.
11. Graham, C.R., Allen, S. and Ure, D., 2005. Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. Encyclopedia of information science and technology, M. Khosrow-Pour, ed., Hershey, PA: Idea Group, pp. 263-259.
12. Granic, A., Mifsud, C. and Cukusic, M., 2009. Design, implementation and validation of a Europe-wide pedagogical framework for e-learning. Computers & Education, 53 (4), pp. 1052-1081.
13. Groen, L. and Carmody, G., 2005. Blended learning in a first year mathematics subject. Proceedings of UniServe Science Blended Learning Symposium, pp. 50-55.
14. Kerres, M., de Witt, C., 2003. A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28 (2-3), pp. 101-113.
15. Limniou, M. and Smith, M., 2010. Teachers' and students' perspectives on teaching and learning through virtual learning environments, European Journal of Engineering Education, 35 (6), pp. 645-653.
16. Lux, J.R. and Davidson, B.D., 2003. Guidelines for the development of computer-based instruction modules for science and engineering. Educational Technology & Society, 6 (4), pp. 124-133.
17. Marino, T.A., 2000. Learning online: a view from both sides. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 9 (4), pp. 4-6.
18. Markvorsen, S. and Schmidt, K., 2012. Online Mathematics Education - E-Math for First Year Engineering Students. International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2012), Porto, Portugal.
19. Martínez-Caro, E. and Campuzano-Bolarín, F., 2011. Factors affecting students' satisfaction in engineering disciplines: traditional vs. blended approaches. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36 (5), pp. 473-483.
20. Mazur, E., 1997. Peer-Instruction: A user's manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall
21. Meriam, J.L. and Craige, L.G., 2008. Engineering Mechanics, Dynamics, 6.th edn., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
22. stEuropean Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning Crete, Greece.
23. Nagy-Shadman, E. and Desrochers, C., 2008. Student response technology: empirically grounded or just a gimmick? International Journal of Science Education, 30, pp. 2023-2066.
24. Oliver, M. and Trigwel, K. (2005). Can 'Blended Learning' be redeemed? E-learning, 2 (1), pp. 17-26
25. Osguthorpe, R.T. and Graham, C.R., 2003. Blended learning environments: definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4 (3), pp. 227-233.
26. Peercy, P.S. and Cramer, S.M, 2011. Redefining Quality in Engineering Education Through Hybrid Instruction. Journal of Engineering Education, 100 (4), pp. 625-629.
27. Schmidt, B., 2011. Teaching engineering dynamics by use of peer instruction supported by an audience response system, European Journal of Engineering Education, 36 (5), pp. 413-423.
28. th International Conference on Engineering and Technology Education (INTERTECH 2012), ed. by Claudio da Rocha Brito and Melany M. Ciampi, ISBN 978-85-89120-89-0.
29. th Asian technology Conference in Mathematics.