Keywords

1 Introduction

The author was educated between the 1980s and 1990s during the twentieth century in a developing country (Peru) where he got his professional degree in mechanical and electrical engineering. During a master program in Sweden the author used a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) for first time. Nowadays, as assistant professor at Stord/Haugesund University College in Norway, the courses content are the same however it is possible to run a class with more tools. The author considers now at least five elements: the reading material (mainly books), the examinations (or compulsory work), the computer, the virtual learning environment and the internet (there are more elements). The virtual learning environment (VLE) is the official channel of communication for the course and in fact the main source of interaction with the students. The digital technology is already at the universities and the author would like to present his experience regarding videos in engineering context.

2 Stord/Haugesund University College and the Norwegian Higher Education Reform

Stord/Haugesund University College (Høgskolen Stord/Haugesund in Norwegian or HSH) showed a lot of interest in developing an arena for e-learning, the description in the paper “Noregsnettet med IT for Open Læring (NITOL)” [1] explains in more detail the accumulated experience in HSH (Since 1990s with Just In Time Open Learning) [2].

At the engineer department we started to work with a new framework to engineer students, and there one skill (among others) which is described like: “Candidate has engineering professional digital competence” [3]. Lecturers must have digital competence thus it is possible to teach and push the students to acquire the digital competence that is required in the new framework. As a lecturer the author started to be active with digital tools during lectures and in the VLE (Fronter). In the case of engineer students the author considers that the challenge is bigger because there are a lot of digital tools and many of them are used in some specific industries and is not good to teach a specific program for example. Another important situation is that in the engineer department we are going to offer a new program with collaboration with Stavanger University and students are going to take some lectures by video (some of the professors are going to teach from Stavanger).

Many enthusiasts authors (including the author at the beginning) whose celebrate the use of digital technology are very optimist regarding the use of computer in education. Marc Prensky called the young generation “digital native” [4]. But regarding learning and after a pedagogical course the author started to use the word “learning” more close to my learning objectives. However Marshall et al. has a research regarding how engineering student conceptualize learning [5]. It is easy recognize, during a conversation with the students, that many of them are focus in the lower learning level which is called Conception A: Learning as memorizing definitions, equations and procedures. Regarding earning, lecturers would like that students are focus in the Conceptions called C or D (The conception E: Learning as a change as person is a real goal but in the authr’s view this goal should be achieved at the end of an engineering program).

3 E-Learning Experience at the MIT

During March of 2012 the author enrolls voluntary in an online course (Circuits and Electronics 6.002x) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT. The course was free of charge and has duration of 14 weeks the evaluation of the course was: “home works 15 %, labs 15 %, midterm 30 %, and final exam 40 %. Each of the home works and labs carries equal weight” [6]. The midterm exam was during the 8th week and the final exam during the last week.

During the course, the author got familiar with the different digital tools that were used by lecturers in the online course by MIT, and it was possible to analyze the course design as a lecturer’s perspective like the evaluation method (portfolio assessment) and the learning activities: electronic tests connected con lectures (a video sequence). After 6 weeks as many online students the author did not continue in the course however there are statistics and a summary of the MIT online pilot project available at the web page [6].

The author interprets this statistics like: 1,54,763 curios, 69,221 potential students, and 26,349 (100 % for the next calculation) students or maybe “curios students” (The author was in this group). Only 7,157 (27 %) achieved deep learning (pass the course). The study hours per week that the author required to earn points in the problems sets, were more than the author expected. The main comment is that the online course at the MIT had a combination of good pedagogical tools (short videos in a sequence) and a lot of students work. It is well known by lecturers that only the student’s hard work can make possible to achieve deep learning. Are the teachers at MIT responsible of the remainder 19,192 (73 % students)? Was the course bad? The design of the course was bad? Well for a university like MIT which has a lot of prestige is not possible to admit some possible answers.

The design of the course was clear to the author: push the student to work systematically each week, with some chances during the semester. Is it possible to do that? At MIT is possible, and as a lecturer the author recommends to find a balance between the study hours and the compulsory learning activities which must be aligned with the learning objectives in a course.

4 Making Videos: Software and the Topics

During the past year 2012 three videos were made to the engineer students in the course of thermodynamics where 90 students were register in the VLE (Fronter). This course is considered difficult for many students and traditional some topics which should be easy for the students became a source of frustration to the lecture. After an informal conversation with a colleague (who has more experience teaching this course) the author realized that the students have difficulties to make a pressure—volume (p–V) diagram or a temperature—entropy (T–s) diagram. In order to give the students an extra tool to fulfill a learning goal, this normally is evaluated both in test (compulsory work) and in exams. The author tried to make short videos but at the end three videos were published and the students would need between 20 or 30 min to watch every video.

The first video: The thermodynamic table video was a first experience to the author. The goal was to integrate many aspects regarding teaching, the book, the allowed aid, etc. It was a test for me and for the students also. The video was published 02/09/2012 in three different links (with three different formats: flash format for computer, Ipad and Ipod or Iphone) after that the question was How could the students react to the video? The author was disappointed about the statistics (students who watch the video), after one week (07/09/2012) only eleven students had watched the video (8 in computer format, 2 in an Ipad and 1 in Ipod or Iphone).

The second video was the p–V diagram and it was publish before a test (08/09/2012). In the test a question regarding the p–V diagram was included and the author expected at many students could answer that question. The written test was held 04/10/2012 and there were 61 students who attend the written test. Before the test only 17 students watched the p–V diagram video, 13 of them attended the written test and the rest (4 students) were not in the test. However the statics regarding the students who watched the video and attend the test (13 students) only 5 students scored pass (pass means at students answer correct over 50 % of the test). Regarding my specific intention to give the students an extra tool and helping to answer a specific question: How to make a p–V diagram? The statistics show a poor result. One student was no able to answer the question, one got half answer and the rest (3 students) were “on the way” to answer the question (between 70 and 80 %). These five students got score between 50 and 58 % in the total test.

The third video was the T–s diagram and it was publish before a second test (18/10/2012). The second test was held on 25/10/2012 and a question regarding the T-s diagram was included but at that time the author was disappointed on digital tools. The second test was an extra opportunity to the students who did not attend and did not pass the first test. However the statics showed that only 6 students watched the T–s video before the test. There were 33 students who attended the second written test and only 21 pass the test where 3 students watched the T–s video. Regarding the specific goal, the statistics show a poor result again because only 5 students who watched the T-s video attended the second test, two of them did not answer the question and the rest (the three who passed) got a score between 30 and 50 % in that specific question.

There were a third test (the last one) and it was held on 08/11/2012 the author printed out the video attendance 3 days before the test and only 17 students attend the last written test I included a question regarding the T–s diagram again at that point only 9 students had watched the T-s video, and 4 of them attended the third test. One student got 80 % in the specific question regarding the T–s diagram, another student got 30 % and the rest (two students) did not answer the question or got any point.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Distribution of students after exam

Full size image

The author receive at least one specific positive comment regarding the videos however a lot of effort was put in the lecturer side (making videos) and the videos were not watched as the author expected. Deep learning is a very difficult process which involves a lot of time and if the student uses some minutes to watch the video (I am not sure at the students watched the all video or maybe just open it which is enough to be part in the statistics), without any other learning activity, the learning objective is poorly achieved.

The last research about this experience was regarding the student’s results in the final exam. It was interesting to know which kind of students watched the video. The author realized that the god students do not need this extra help. Most of the students who watched those three videos were students who got a final grade between 40 and 80 % as a final result in the exam; this is showed in Fig. 1. The discussion regarding quality of the video is not included in this paper, and there were only a written test as main learning activity connected with this topic. During 2011 a colleague who was responsible of the Thermodynamics course gave me the statistics regarding the three tests. Students during 2011 got better results in tests however only a T–s diagram was evaluate in the three written tests and looks like the students at that time achieve a better results regarding this specific topic: How to make a T–s diagram? Probably students in 2011 were more active in that time however as Erstad mention is not good to tried to describe a generation of students as “digital natives” without consider the different aspects or categories of media literacy [7].

5 Digital Technologies in the Context of Engineering Education

Regarding learning the author considers that is difficult to make a receipt because every lecturer designs his course with specific learning objectives and some learning activities which must be aligned with the learning goals in the course [8]. In my experience as an e-learner student at MIT [6], during 2012, I had the opportunity to use videos an deal with electronic tests during the course. And in the author’s opinion the electronic test is underestimated as a learning activity. In the following description I tried to remark the differences from the learning perspective the advantage of an electronic test:

The written test, which normally used at HSH, has many advantages and in the engineer department is used as compulsory work. The main advantage is that students are prepared to the exam and they take the test in the same conditions that will be evaluated during the exam. However in many occasions some students return the answers before the test ends (they think at they did right) and the students have to wait (at least two weeks) for a feedback. In that period of time the learning activity, design by the teacher, could disappear. Another aspect is that the teacher only receive the answer notes, it is not possible to know how students think, only what they had written. The time between the students work with the question and get a feedback is long and during that time the students can lost the original learning intention of the teacher. This is shown in the Fig. 2 where the “two weeks arrow” makes the feedback not important in terms of learning:

Fig. 2
figure 2

The written test: The Lecturer design and the students view

Full size image

The electronic test (which was underestimated by the author and is nearly the same that the written test) works different and it is possible to use in both ways, not only to measure if the students achieve the learning goal in addition the lecturer can get good information regarding the students learning progress. The author changed his opinion regarding electronic test after the e-learning course in MIT. The homework’s were really electronic test and students had to achieve the right answer thus the computer gave a student an immediate feedback and if the answer was wrong the student had to calculate again (check errors during calculation) or think again about the question in order to get the right solution. During this process (to do it and do it again if it is necessary) a student, who gets the right answer, comes to a deep learning zone this is described in Fig. 3. What about the rest? What about the students who are not able to get the right answer? In the MIT course was not possible to survive without pass, but here at HSH the lecturer is able to take the statistics of an electronic test and use some minutes in the next class to help to the students who did not achieve the learning objective thus the electronic test can be a good tool for both lecturer and students.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The electronic test, the Lecturer design and the students view

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Systematic compulsory work with electronic tests

Full size image

This paper is written to share the author’s experience not as a conclusion of how videos can help to engineer students to get a learning outcome. Despite the poor results the author considers that short videos (MIT used videos between 7 and 9 minutes in sequence) combined with obligatory electronic test could work in an engineer context, as is presented in Fig. 4. Some topics requires an extra help after a lecture because is difficult that all the students focus 100 % of attention during 45 min lecture. In the next figure the author shows how the digital tools can be combined every week (or chapter) during the semester.

However the author has a lot of concerns regarding digital tools and maybe some concerns will be part in future work. N. Carr has a book called “The Shallows, What the Internet is Doing to our Brains” in the book he presented some neuroscientist papers and argued that internet is changing us in many aspects [9]. One part of his discussion is regarding ethics and the author thinks that we have not discussed this enough.

6 Conclusions

The author emphasizes that this experienced needs to be evaluated with more tools thus a proper conclusion section must not be presented. The author considers that as engineer educators, we must discuss about the impact of digital technology in learning activities at universities:

The author understands that technologies like: VLE, e-learning has many advantages and these technologies are parted of our present and future development, but are we sure that the long term results will be positive? Are we sure that we can achieve deep learning with this tools?

The statistics in the MIT online course shows that just a few online students got a diploma (achieved deep learning). What are going to do the others universities? Follow the new online trend despite of the poor learning results?

It is necessary to pushed lecturers into a digital arena? It is easy to pushed students or “digital natives” in the digital arena with complex software? It is easy to achieve deep learning with simulation programs?