Review of Educational Technology: Closing the Gap Between Modern Technology and the

College Engineering Classroom

Abstract

This paper aggregates information from past and current studies regarding the implementation of
technology in engineering classrooms and identifies the most promising ideas, technologies, and
techniques. This paper provides insight into best practices for implementing technologies to
improve the education of engineering students. This paper provides recommendations to adopt
non-traditional teaching methods. Educational tools and techniques are evaluated on the basis of:
Adoption and Assimilation, Access, Community, Intellectual Presence, Student Perception, and
Development of Social and Professional Skills. Best practices are highlighted with descriptions
of the technologies and techniques that were found most promising.

Introduction

The past 20 years were dominated by technological advances, but many modern classrooms are
run the same as they were in the 1990s. An overarching goal of educational institutions is to
maximize the quantity, quality, and accessibility of education for their students [1], [2]. There is
currently a gap between the technologies available and the ways they are implemented to
improve education accessibility [3]. This “tech-lag” is an opportunity and necessity for colleges
everywhere to close the gap and create classrooms with diverse access points to learning,
increasing each student’s chance for academic and professional success. From virtual reality
classrooms to increased mobile accessibility to independent learning modules, there is a wealth
of potential for educational breakthroughs.

The incoming college freshman demographic is much more diverse than it was just 25 years ago.
Though the incoming freshman is still the statistical norm, more students have jobs outside of
school, children or other dependents and/or are more life-experienced (often in their 30s or
older). This resulted in a surge of first-generation college students up to 63% of the total US
college population. The diverse group that comprises a college class requires varied access points
to learning [4].

“For many universities, the Internet revolution arrived on campus faster than anticipated” [5].
The traditional classroom model has served academia to its full ability, but change has come.
Some US universities have average college class sizes upwards of 50 students [6]. A standard
lecture in a 40+ student class often falls short in answering individual student questions and
struggles to foster a cohesive community where peer-to-peer interaction is so limited [7].

There is a consensus that both incoming freshman engineering students and recent engineering
grads need different skills and support systems to succeed in college and career than they did
before the internet revolution.
Methodology

The following methodology was used for identifying Factors of Success for Educational
Technologies and Best Practices.

Keeping in mind the ever-changing technological landscape, information and statistics were
solely gathered from publications less than 10 years old. Best practices were selected based on
consistent evidential support across multiple studies. The following questions helped serve as a
guide for identifying best practices:

What methods of educational technology implementation will be best for the future of...

1. The student?

What advantages will the student gain from this experience cognitively, socially, professionally,
or otherwise? What difficulties could this impose on the student? Is the technology better than
other similar technologies? Is it better than nothing?

2. The professor and college/university?

Does this further the mission of the school? Is this prohibitively expensive? Does it require more
training/set-up than it is worth? Does it increase or decrease workloads of professors and staff?

3. The engineering workforce?

Will this student be a better worker and employee? Will they be responsible, safe, and
communicative when called upon? Will the technologies used in the classroom carry over to
industry?

4. General Society?

Will this help the student be an engineer with good ethics? Will this help students speak up when
necessary? Will this uphold the professional engineering ethical responsibility of keeping the
public safe?

Definitions

The following terms are either used in, or are important concepts to, this paper:

Access Point to Learning: A means by which students can obtain knowledge or skills. Examples
would be: a tutoring session, a textbook, or an online video.

Clicker: A classroom response tool used to record individual student answers to questions during
lectures. Each student has their own device to record their answer; it could be a phone
application or a third-party device. Answers are displayed on the projector as aggregate data
similar to Figure 1 below [8].
Figure 1. Example of Clicker Response Display. This graphic means that about 20% of students
answered A, 34% answered B, etc.

Delphi Method: A standardized and commonly used method in flipped classrooms:

“The Delphi method works as follows: (1) the instructor creates a question; (2) students submit
their answers; (3) the instructor displays the overall results to the entire class; (4) the instructor
facilitates a brief discussion if necessary; (5) instructor asks students to modify and re-submit
their answers as appropriate. The cycle ends when the instructor believes that most of the
students have reached some agreement. Then the instructor moves on to another topic/question
and repeats the steps” [9].

Flipped Classroom: “The flipped classroom is a pedagogical model whereby the typical lecture
and homework components of a course are reversed. The content heavy lecture is usually
replaced by direct computer-based individual instruction such as online videos, and the face to
face classroom time is spent on interactive group learning activities, discussion of difficult
concepts and problem solving” [10].

Makerspace: A physical space filled with tools and equipment for people to use, meet, and
collaborate in. The core focus of the space is creating and making physical things [11].

Mobile Learning: Learning through remote, electronic access points [12].

Peer Learning: A pedagogical model in which student interaction and discussion, and teaching
amongst students are encouraged [13].

Peer Created Content: Learning materials created and shared among students.

Traditional Classroom: A 2-3 meeting per week theoretical lecture with worked examples and
assigned problem sets and reading.

Virtual Office Hours: Any one or a combination of online student-teacher interactions held in
conjunction with, or replacing traditional office hours [14].

Factors of Success for Educational Technology

The following factors were deemed crucial to successful implementation of new pedagogies and
techniques:
1. Adoption and Assimilation
2. Access
3. Community
4. Intellectual Presence
5. Student Perception
6. Development of Social and Professional Skills

Adoption and Assimilation

In order to be impactful, most technologies must be adopted by both students and professors.
Therefore, it must be assessed whether participation will be sufficient or if it will be necessary to
encourage use through class credit. Because technologies do not exist for their own sake, they
should be implemented only if an improvement to the learning environment with adequate
participation is expected [15].

If a technology is going to be integrated into an institution, it must also be supported by the

administration. The overhead projector and handheld calculator are examples of well-integrated
technologies. While institutions avoid requiring items that are an extra cost to students,
calculators have become so integral to the education environment, that their benefits outweigh
the costs [16].

New educational tools should feel like natural and obvious additions to the curricula.
Technologies with seamless adoption phases generally are warmly welcomed by students,
professors, administrators, and the public, receive political and financial backing and are
regarded as a wholly positive influence on learning [17], [18].

Access

If the mastery of a technique, tool, design program, programming language, machine, etc. is
projected to be necessary for the future career of a student, an ideal institution would provide as
much access and training for that tool, etc. as possible. Students must be prepared for the
workforce as it is today, not as it was 10 years ago.

Educators should seek to create useful access points to learning wherever possible. Many access
points can be reused, and often the time input for the professor is mostly up front with long-term
benefits. This is true for online content like videos and notes, hands-on project plans, group-work
activities, interactive practice problem sets and exams (created through Typeform, Classmarker,
the institution’s own site, etc.), and other access points devised by educators.

Examples of Access Points to Learning (List not exhaustive):

● Class time
● Homework
● Textbooks
● Virtual and in-person office hours
● Online notes and related content
● Online lecture videos
 ● Online Q&A between students and instructor
● Peer-learning sessions
● Peer-created content
● E-Books
● Makerspaces
● Training sessions for equipment
● Peer tutors for programming, CAD, etc.
● e-Portfolios for record keeping/CV
● Collaborative online editing tools

Community

Creating a community within the college where students are comfortable asking questions and
sharing opinions is crucial to innovation and peer learning. Students are more driven to succeed
when they feel they are an integral part of the school [19], [20]. A collaborative community helps
students develop team skills, social skills, and friendships during college [1].

Interactive and/or personally made online content is also crucial to a learning community. The
online learning environment should remain human and be a place where personal connections
can be developed or the students feel that it is merely an online program [2]. Regular interactive
online activities like live Q&A sessions with video, or peer learning sessions with chat are
encouraged.

Intellectual Presence

Professors should actively seek to maintain student involvement throughout class time and have
homework and/or online activities that are fully engaging and require an active learner [2].
Unfortunately, it is physically and mentally difficult for most people to pay perfect attention for
extended periods [21]. In summary, active learner presence is a pillar of education [1].

Use of technology that takes away from intellectual presence of the student and/or professor
should be avoided. A simple example would be a difficult-to-read font on a lecture slide. A more
complicated example would be requiring that students use their phones or laptops for the
duration of class. While there is obvious educational potential, the distractions could outweigh
the risks (especially in introductory classes where most students are younger and accustomed to
public K-12 style classes) [2]. However, in an upper-division course, that kind of multitasking
can be good practice for career.

Student Perception

The student’s perception of a university and the perceived quality of their education will directly
affect a school’s reputation. An alumni is forever an ambassador of the college, and their opinion
of the school shapes the surrounding narrative. Students invest their lives and money in their
education and, just like any customer, appreciate the colleges and professors that show an
interest in making it worth every penny.
Students expect a modern education in every sense of the word. They want to be prepared for the
future [20]. New educational technologies that students perceive to be beneficial have higher
usage/attendance rates and have a smoother adoption phase [18], [23].

Ideally, students will feel that class time is productive, planned, and entertaining, and that
homework is relevant and academically challenging. The technologies and pedagogies are
merely a means to help achieve that reality [2], [15], [20].

Development of Social and Professional Skills

The requirements of the engineering workforce have shifted. Proficient computer programming
knowledge and CAD skills are absolute requirements for a modern mechanical engineering
graduate. Twenty-five years ago, tools like these were essentially nonexistent; they either had not
been invented or were only necessary in small niches [24].

Educational technology needs to be in sync with industry technology. Businesses, especially

large, international ones, have to stay up to date on specific industry and communication
technologies to interface amongst multiple locations. Some provide remote training and often
rely on the employee to train themselves. Versatility is paramount [3]. Educational institutions
are responsible for preparing students for the engineering workforce and should adopt some of
the industry trends like interactive video conferencing, the prominent use of data-collection
software like LabVIEW, FEA in CAD software [3], and soft trends like more communication
between interdisciplinary teams on projects [24].

These factors (Adoption and Assimilation, Access, Community, Intellectual Presence, Student
Perception, and Development of Social and Professional Skills) were used in combination with
the questions in the Methodology section of this paper to serve as a guide for identifying best
practices.

Best Practices

Professors should use technology to facilitate student collaboration and communication over
attempting to enhance a solo lecture. Lectures that are mostly one-sided and don’t include
student interaction and involvement greatly reduce intellectual presence and student satisfaction
[15]. Each student can contribute a unique perspective to material. In and outside of class, there
are numerous access points to learning, including the students themselves.

Intellectual presence from students as both a learner and contributor can be achieved through
creating a sense of community with the students and professor. This is not unlike the business
goal of creating a healthy collaborative environment. It is important to create a community both
within the classroom and within the engineering school itself, not just the university as a whole.
Social research suggests that it is easier for humans to identify with groups of less than a few
hundred people, such as the size of a department or large class. The larger groups usually
develop core groups of about five or ten students [19]. All educational technologies should
consider basic human social needs as they pertain to community and intellectual presence.
Virtual office hours have much higher student satisfaction than traditional office hours [14], [20],
[21]. Virtual office hours require significantly less commitment from both parties (can be done
from home/mobile), but must be easy to access and communicate through. Instructors should be
comfortable enough with the technologies so that issues can be resolved as they arise. Students
tend to use virtual office hours more in upper division classes [20].

An engineering school with an average budget cannot afford to implement all best practices, but
it can specialize its instruction, equipment, and space for one or two specific disciplines instead
of attempting to cover every discipline and falling short [25]. This hypothetical low-budget
college could have a Makerspace dedicated to, for example, electronics and coding. Free
peripheral material could be borrowed from an online resource but professors could take the time
to create personal content for their core subjects.

High-quality, organized, online content that can be accessed by students 24/7 greatly increases
overall student satisfaction and provides extra access for non-traditional students who can’t stay
on campus as often. Online tools have nearly no drawbacks unless they are off-topic, misleading,
or too disorganized to navigate. They can be as intertwined with a curriculum as the professor
sees fit. Benefit can be found in something simple like handwritten notes, or from fully
interactive video/reading lectures with activities and quizzes. It is up to the
professor/administration to decide what is best for the individual courses. However, at least a
small amount of targeted, posted content is strongly suggested and can keep students and
professors more focused on relevant subjects [13]. Online material doesn’t need to be exhaustive,
it needs to capture the essence of the current material so students know what to study to succeed.

Outside-of-class activities that involve online communication tools already familiar to students
like social media, blogging, and video sharing platforms, are extra useful for breaking the ice and
getting students to know each other. Peer-created content is also useful for fostering community
[2]; students can write a blog or post an instructional or response video on a shared drive that the
whole class has access to.

Materials made by the professor, such as videos or notes, are more personal than third-party
materials like textbooks or YouTube videos. Posting original content demonstrates a
commitment on the part of the instructor and makes the class unique and memorable. Surveys
have shown that students use virtual office hours not just for content but also as a means of
familiarizing themselves with the instructor and other students [20], [26].

Requiring students to purchase tools or materials with personal funds should be avoided if
possible. Studies have repeatedly shown that “students who complain about little else will
complain about the cost of a clicker” [16]. Any unnecessary charge negatively affects student
perception, leading to compromised presence. When student’s personal lives and financial
security aren’t taken seriously by the university, the student will struggle to take the university
seriously [5], [16].

In larger classrooms, professors can use digital-response software to encourage collective

agreement and problem solving through Delphi-style discussion and iteration to create a sense of
community within the classroom [9]. This is commonly done using clickers (which requires
additional student money). There are some alternatives:

1. Digital-response software using free cell phone applications: Phone apps don’t force students
to buy clickers, but do require all students to have phones and use them during class, opening
up a potential distraction.

2. Plickers: Each student has a unique QR-code printed on a small sheet of paper. The professor
asks a question, the students hold up the QR code in one of four orientations, signaling one of
the multiple choice answers, the professor then scans the class with a free phone app,
recording all answers (and taking attendance) simultaneously.

Conclusion

Educators that are considering a technological addition to a course could benefit from carefully
considering whether the technology and the implementation plan will follow the Six Factors of
Success: Adoption and Assimilation, Access, Community, Intellectual Presence, Student
Perception, and Development of Social and Professional Skills. Honest, personal performance
reviews of classroom/mobile educational technologies coupled with regular, concerted changes
to techniques are necessary to ensure successful integration. If a pedagogy is not achieving a
noticeable, positive effect or feedback, one should consider eliminating the practice.

Technologies that are prone to malfunction and cause troubleshooting delays during class or that
students or professors have consistent technical issues with should be abandoned or postponed
unless they are useful engineering tools. Live testing of new educational technology/technique is
necessary for progress but shouldn’t be done without careful planning, solid supporting evidence,
a fully committed staff, and an informed and willing student body.

Examples of practical technologies/tools that require extensive adoption/assimilation planning

are machining equipment (lathes, mills, bandsaws, etc.), programming languages, common CAD
programs, and data collection and mapping softwares. These examples have been successfully
implemented into many engineering schools even though they require more effort and
infrastructure to include [25]. Inherent learning curves, use of class time for
training/troubleshooting, and student participation requirements should be weighed before
inclusion in curricula.

The modern engineering lesson plan and classroom should adapt constantly to match the
improving communication technologies and make regular attempts to blend the most useful
technological advances with up-to-date, relevant curricula. Keeping educational technology up to
date should be thought of as an integral part of an engineering curriculum and in-step with the
cutting edge of innovation.
References

[1] A. W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson, “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education,” Biochemical Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 140–141, 1989.

[2] N. D. Vaughan, M. Cleveland-Innes, and D. R. Garrison, Teaching in blended learning environments: creating
and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press, 2013.

[3] J. J. Duderstadt, “Engineering for a Changing World,” Holistic Engineering Education, pp. 17–35, 2010.

[4] United States, Congress, Educational Technology. “Reimagining the Role of Technology in Higher
Learning.” Reimagining the Role of Technology in Higher Learning, Office of Educational Technology, Jan. 2017.
[Accessed 7 Jan. 2019].

[5] D. A. Abrahams, “Technology adoption in higher education: a framework for identifying and prioritising issues
and barriers to adoption of instructional technology,” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, vol. 2, no.
2, pp. 34–49, 2010. [Accessed December 29, 2018].

[6] “Estimated Class Sizes: More Than 90 National Universities,” publicuniversityhonors.com, 24-Sep-2017.
[Accessed December 24, 2018].

[7] H. R. Abachi and G. Muhammad, “The impact of m-learning technology on students and educators,” Computers
in Human Behavior, vol. 30, Jan. 2014. [Accessed January 9, 2018].

[8] S. L. Boatright-Horowitz, “Useful Pedagogies or Financial Hardships? Interactive Response Technology

(Clickers) in the Large College Classroom,” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
vol. 21, no. 3, 2009. [Accessed January 15, 2018].

[9] Y.-T. Chuang, “SSCLS: A Smartphone-Supported Collaborative Learning System,” Telematics and Informatics,
vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 463–474, Aug. 2015. [Accessed December 20, 2018].

[10] B. Kerr, “The flipped classroom in engineering education: A survey of the research,” 2015 International
Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), Sep. 2015.

[11] J. Burke, Makerspaces: a practical guide for librarians, 1st ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.

[12] D. Bose and K. Pakala, “Learner Perceptions on the Use of Mobile Learning Strategies and Devices for Team
e-portfolio Content Creation,” E-Learn 2014, Oct. 2014.

[13] G. S. Mason, T. R. Shuman, and K. E. Cook, “Comparing the Effectiveness of an Inverted Classroom to a
Traditional Classroom in an Upper-Division Engineering Course,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 56, no. 4,
pp. 430–435, Nov. 2013. [Accessed December 29, 2018].

[14] D. Yang and K. Pakala, “Building an Effective Online Thermodynamics Course for Undergraduate
Engineering Students,” American Society for Engineering Education, Apr. 2017.

[15] P. Serdyukov, “Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?,” Journal of
Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4–33, 2017.

[16] J. E. Caldwell, “Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips,” CBE—Life
Sciences Education, vol. 6, no. 1, Oct. 2017.
[17] B. Capo and A. Orellana, “Web 2.0 Technologies for Classroom Instruction: High School Teachers'
Perceptions and Adoption Factors,” Fischler College of Education: Faculty Articles, 2011. [Accessed January 25,
2018].

[18] C. Buabeng-Andoh, “Factors Influencing Teachers' Adoption and Integration of Information and
Communication Technology into Teaching: A Review of the Literature,” International Journal of Education and
Development using Information and Communication Technology, vol. 8, no. 1, 2012. [Accessed January 25, 2018].

[19] D. Elliott, M. Gamino, and J. J. Jenkins, “Creating Community in the College Classroom: Best Practices for
Increased Student Success,” International Journal of Education and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 6, Jun. 2016.
[Accessed December 19, 2018].

[20] P. R. Lowenthal, J. C. Dunlap, and C. Snelson, “Live Synchronous Web Meetings in Asynchronous Online
Courses: Reconceptualizing Virtual Office Hours,” Online Learning, vol. 21, no. 4, 2017. [Accessed January 20,
2018].

[21] Y. N. Harari, Sapiens. Bazar, 2017.

[22] R. E. Lillie and D. E. Wygal, “Virtual Office Hours (VOH) in accounting coursework: Leveraging technology
to enhance an integrative learning environment,” Journal of Accounting Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2011.

[23] E. Blair, C. Maharaj, and S. Primus, “Performance and perception in the flipped classroom,” Education and
Information Technologies, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1465–1482, Nov. 2016. [Accessed December 20, 2018].

[24] R. D. Reid and N. R. Sanders, Operations Management: And Integrated Approach, 6th ed. Wiley, 2015.

[25] A. Longo, B. Yoder, R. C. Guerra, and R. Tsanov, “University Makerspaces: Characteristics and Impact on
Student Success in Engineering and Engineering Technology Education,” 2017 ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition Proceedings, 2017. [Accessed January 16, 2018].

[26] “Faculty-Student Interaction (FSI): Learn More,” ENGAGE Engineering. [Online]. Available:
https://www.engageengineering.org/fsi/whyitworks/learnmore.