Enhancing Engineering Electromagnetics Education: A Comparative Analysis of Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning Environments
Downloads
How to Cite
This study evaluates implementation of asynchronous learning in teaching engineering electromagnetics module. A group of first-year engineering students participated in the study. The instruction was divided into two periods, with the first period using asynchronous online mode and the second period using synchronous face-to-face mode. The performance evaluation was based on essay questions on class tests, and the data variances were statistically analysed. In addition, student feedback was gathered through interviews conducted at the end of the semester. In terms of overall performance, the results indicate that synchronous and asynchronous learning methods were equally effective, as no significant difference was found. However, individual student grades revealed a variety of outcomes for the asynchronous learning method, suggesting that students have different learning preferences and levels of adaptability. Positive feedback for asynchronous learning included the ability to adjust the pace of learning and conveniently access course materials. Students valued the availability of recorded lectures for reviewing difficult subject matter. Students with lower study motivation or limited experience with independent learning were negatively affected by the absence of scaffolding and immediate feedback in the asynchronous learning approach. Some students emphasized the importance of face-to-face interaction with the instructor, especially in a subject like electromagnetics that requires intuitive thought and elaboration.
Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murph, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). Horizon Report 2019 Higher Education Edition (pp. 3–41). EDU19. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/208644/
Almei?da, F., & Si?moes, J. (2019). The Role of Serious Games, Gamification and Industry 4.0 Tools in the Education 4.0 Paradigm. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.554469
Baukal, C. E. (2010). Continuing engineering education through distance learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(2), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790903560018
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789498
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
G. Splitt, F. (2003). The Challenge to Change: On Realizing the New Paradigm for Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00756.x
Gelles, L. A., Lord, S. M., Hoople, G. D., Chen, D. A., & Mejia, J. A. (2020). Compassionate Flexibility and Self-Discipline: Student Adaptation to Emergency Remote Teaching in an Integrated Engineering Energy Course during COVID-19. Education Sciences, 10(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110304
Hadullo, K., Oboko, R., & Omwenga, E. (2018). Factors affecting asynchronous e-learning quality in developing countries university settings. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 14(1). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/183551/
Jorgensen, D. (2003). The Challenges and Benefits of Asynchronous Learning Networks. In Distance Learning. Routledge.
Li, K. C., & Wong, B. T.-M. (2021). Features and trends of personalised learning: A review of journal publications from 2001 to 2018. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1811735
Lin, X., & Gao, L. (2020). Students’ sense of community and perspectives of taking synchronous and asynchronous online courses. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), Article 1. http://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/448
Mikki, S. M., & Antar, Y. (2016). New foundations for applied electromagnetics: The spatial structure of fields. Artech House.
Pappas, G., Siegel, J., Vogiatzakis, I. N., & Politopoulos, K. (2022). Gamification and the Internet of Things in Education. In M. Ivanovi?, A. Klašnja-Mili?evi?, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Handbook on Intelligent Techniques in the Educational Process: Vol 1 Recent Advances and Case Studies (pp. 317–339). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04662-9_15
Ratten, V. (2023). The post COVID-19 pandemic era: Changes in teaching and learning methods for management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100777
Rogers, D. L. (2000). A Paradigm Shift: Technology Integration for Higher Education in the New Millennium. AACE Review (Formerly AACE Journal), 1(13), 19–33. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/8058/
Roman, T. A., & Uttamchandani, S. (2018). Researching pedagogy within small active learning classrooms: Examining enacted pedagogies of learner and instructor interactions. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(4), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1452199
Rüde, U., Willcox, K., McInnes, L. C., & Sterck, H. D. (2018). Research and Education in Computational Science and Engineering. SIAM Review, 60(3), 707–754. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1096840
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using Student-Involved Classroom Assessment to Close Achievement Gaps. Theory Into Practice, 44(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4401_3
The core components of education 4.0 in higher education: Three case studies in engineering education. (2021). Computers & Electrical Engineering, 93, 107278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107278
Copyright (c) 2023 Muhammad Roil Bilad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
