# Comparison of In-Person and Virtual Labs/Tutorials for Engineering Students Using Blended Learning Principles

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Literature Review

#### 2.1. Flipped Classroom

#### 2.2. Gamification

#### 2.3. Surveys

## 3. Methodology

#### 3.1. Overview

#### 3.2. Description of the Experiments

#### 3.3. Description of the In-Person Labs

#### 3.4. Description of the COVID-19 Compliant In-Person Labs

#### 3.5. Description of the Virtual Experiments

#### 3.6. Evaluation Methods for the Effectiveness of the Virtual Lab and the Blended Learning Experience

#### 3.7. Description of the Study Groups

#### 3.8. Limitations

## 4. Results

#### 4.1. Engagement with Virtual Lab

#### 4.2. Student Feedback and Satisfaction

#### 4.2.1. Self-Perceived Level of Difficulty of the Virtual Lab

#### 4.2.2. Confidence of Understanding the Theory of the In-Person and Virtual Lab

#### 4.2.3. General Questions and Satisfaction of the Students with the Virtual Lab

#### 4.2.4. Open-Ended Feedback Questions and Student’s Opinion

#### 4.3. Student Performance: Test Results

## 5. Conclusions

## 6. Future Work

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

## References

- Bonfield, C.A.; Salter, M.; Longmuir, A.; Benson, M.; Adachi, C. Transformation or evolution?: Education 4.0, teaching and learning in the digital age. High. Educ. Pedagog.
**2020**, 5, 223–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Díaz, M.S.; Antequera, J.G.; Pizarro, M.C. Flipped Classroom in the Context of Higher Education: Learning, Satisfaction and Interaction. Educ. Sci.
**2021**, 11, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - O’Flaherty, J.; Phillips, C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet High. Educ.
**2015**, 25, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ahmed, M.M.H.; Indurkhya, B. Investigating cognitive holding power and equity in the flipped classroom. Heliyon
**2020**, 6, e04672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Rodríguez, G.; Díez, J.; Pérez, N.; Baños, J.; Carrió, M. Flipped classroom: Fostering creative skills in undergraduate students of health sciences. Think. Ski. Creat.
**2019**, 33, 100575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hoshang, S.; Hilal, T.A.; Hilal, H.A. Investigating the Acceptance of Flipped Classroom and Suggested Recommendations. Procedia Comput. Sci.
**2021**, 184, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Özbay, Ö.; Çınar, S. Effectiveness of flipped classroom teaching models in nursing education: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today
**2021**, 102, 104922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dooley, L.; Makasis, N. Understanding Student Behavior in a Flipped Classroom: Interpreting Learning Analytics Data in the Veterinary Pre-Clinical Sciences. Educ. Sci.
**2020**, 10, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rahimi, E.; Berg, J.V.D.; Veen, W. Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Comput. Educ.
**2015**, 81, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Parra-González, M.E.; López-Belmonte, J.; Segura-Robles, A.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J. Gamification and flipped learning and their influence on aspects related to the teaching-learning process. Heliyon
**2021**, 7, e06254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alhammad, M.M.; Moreno, A.M. Gamification in software engineering education: A systematic mapping. J. Syst. Softw.
**2018**, 141, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Subhash, S.; Cudney, E.A. Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Comput. Hum. Behav.
**2018**, 87, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Akçayır, G.; Akçayır, M. The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Comput. Educ.
**2018**, 126, 334–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schnieder, M.; Ghosh, S.; Williams, S. Using gamification and flipped classroom for remote/virtual labs for engineering students. In Proceedings of the ECEL 2021 20th European Conference on e-Learning, Berlin, Germany, 28–29 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Howitt, C.; Pegrum, M. Implementing a flipped classroom approach in postgraduate education: An unexpected journey into pedagogical redesign. Australas. J. Educ. Technol.
**2015**, 31, 458–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, N.-S. Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Comput. Educ.
**2014**, 79, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Wilson, S.G. The Flipped Class: A Method to Address the Challenges of an Undergraduate Statistics Course. Teach. Psychol.
**2013**, 40, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Galway, L.P.; Corbett, K.K.; Takaro, T.K.; Tairyan, K.; Frank, E. A novel integration of online and flipped classroom instructional models in public health higher education. BMC Med. Educ.
**2014**, 14, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Gómez-Carrasco, C.-J.; Monteagudo-Fernández, J.; Moreno-Vera, J.-R.; Sainz-Gómez, M. Effects of a Gamification and Flipped-Classroom Program for Teachers in Training on Motivation and Learning Perception. Educ. Sci.
**2019**, 9, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - van Alten, D.C.; Phielix, C.; Janssen, J.; Kester, L. Effects of self-regulated learning prompts in a flipped history classroom. Comput. Hum. Behav.
**2020**, 108, 106318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heradio, R.; de la Torre, L.; Dormido, S. Virtual and remote labs in control education: A survey. Annu. Rev. Control.
**2016**, 42, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, C.-M.; Li, M.-C.; Chen, Y.-T. The effects of web-based inquiry learning mode with the support of collaborative digital reading annotation system on information literacy instruction. Comput. Educ.
**2022**, 179, 104428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schallert, S.; Lavicza, Z.; Vandervieren, E. Towards Inquiry-Based Flipped Classroom Scenarios: A Design Heuristic and Principles for Lesson Planning. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
**2021**, 20, 277–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Davies, R.; Allen, G.; Albrecht, C.; Bakir, N.; Ball, N. Using Educational Data Mining to Identify and Analyze Student Learning Strategies in an Online Flipped Classroom. Educ. Sci.
**2021**, 11, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - MacFarland, T.W.; Yates, J.M. Kruskal–Wallis H-Test for Oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) by Ranks. In Introduction to Nonparametric Statistics for the Biological Sciences Using R; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 177–211. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Distribution of the time-scale for each student to complete one of the six experiments in the virtual lab (using only the highest aggregated grade attempt for each student) (dotted line = median).

**Figure 2.**Distribution of scores achieved by each student in one of the six experiments in the virtual lab (only the highest score of each student is illustrated here) (dotted line = median).

**Figure 4.**Confidence of understanding the theory after completing either an in-person or virtual lab (only students who completed both, the in-person, and virtual labs) (N = 21) (values in percent).

**Figure 5.**Confidence of understanding the theory of the virtual lab (all students) (N = 25) (values in percent).

**Figure 6.**General Questions (sum is not 100% given that students could choose not to answer a question if they, e.g., have not done the in-person lab) (values in percent).

**Figure 7.**Class test scores of various groups of students (P19 and P20 as well as Mix21 and VP21 have the same median score).

**Figure 8.**Statistical significance (p-value) for each combination (i.e., pairs) of the groups. Kruskal– Wallis test (

**a**), t-test (

**b**) (white: no statistical significance).

**Table 1.**Attempts and completions of the virtual lab (100% is the number of students who attempted or completed a specific virtual lab).

Percentage of the Students Who… | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

attempted the virtual lab but not finished it | 47% | 50% | 50% | 51% | 53% | 51% |

finished the virtual experiment once | 35% | 36% | 39% | 38% | 30% | 39% |

finished the virtual experiment once and attempted it another time | 7% | 5% | 4% | 6% | 8% | 3% |

finished the virtual experiment twice | 7% | 6% | 5% | 3% | 6% | 7% |

finished the virtual experiment twice and attempted it another time | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% |

finished the virtual experiment 3 times | 4% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% |

finished the virtual experiment 3 times and attempted it another time | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Schnieder, M.; Williams, S.; Ghosh, S.
Comparison of In-Person and Virtual Labs/Tutorials for Engineering Students Using Blended Learning Principles. *Educ. Sci.* **2022**, *12*, 153.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030153

**AMA Style**

Schnieder M, Williams S, Ghosh S.
Comparison of In-Person and Virtual Labs/Tutorials for Engineering Students Using Blended Learning Principles. *Education Sciences*. 2022; 12(3):153.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030153

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Schnieder, Maren, Sheryl Williams, and Sourav Ghosh.
2022. "Comparison of In-Person and Virtual Labs/Tutorials for Engineering Students Using Blended Learning Principles" *Education Sciences* 12, no. 3: 153.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030153