Abstract
Since the early spring of 2020, the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) outbreak has hindered traditional face-to-face teaching and hands-on, traditional delivery of laboratory courses, forcing universities to migrate from the traditional way of teaching to a remote online approach. Although few studies addressed the pandemic's impact on educational outcomes, no studies are found to investigate the impact of the remote online teaching approach on laboratory courses. This paper highlights the impact of the online teaching approach, coupled with flipped learning pedagogy, as a substitute for traditional laboratories. The course learning outcomes and assessment tools are analyzed and discussed for 46 students enrolled in the Unit Operations Laboratory course in the chemical engineering program at Qatar University. Results show that the course learning outcomes are achieved effectively using the hybrid online-flipped learning pedagogy, which can be considered for computerized traditional laboratories as a moderation solution to alleviate pandemic COVID-19 confinement on learning outcome. This methodology can also be sustained in the future to facilitate the teaching of such lab courses, even in normal conditions, to optimize the resources and avail the delivery of such courses to a larger audience who may have various obstacles to attending traditional lab courses.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Teaching laboratories are a dynamic portion of engineering undergraduate programs, where most of the hands-on experiential learning occurs in the laboratory. The curricular objective of teaching laboratories is to relate theoretical principles and practice, offer students a visual sense of physical units, and help them develop the "feel for engineering" (Bisantz and Paquet 2002; Flack and Volino 1999; Johnson et al. 1995; Okamura et al. 2002; Olinger and Hermanson 2002; Leva 2003; Moore and Voltmer 2003). Teaching laboratories involve higher levels of learning activities, including the promotion of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of facts from different perspectives according to Bloom's taxonomy (Armstrong; Darwazeh 2017). Hence, laboratory courses support profound cognition of fundamentals and theoretical principles through practical observations and investigations and support constructive learning strategies that help students absorb different subjects into their metacognition (Burnett et al. 2004; Eklund-Myrskog 1998; Lee et al. 2009; Lin and Tsai 2009; Marshall et al. 1999; Marton et al. 1993; Purdie and Hattie 2002; Roger 1979; Tsai 2004).
Since the early spring of 2020, the pandemic coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak has hindered global personal contacts for various purposes. Governments worldwide have taken precautionary measures, with emphases on social distancing and working from home, to hamper the virus spread and ensure citizens' safety. The education sector has been affected dramatically, and the responses of universities varied due to the pandemic. While some universities suspended the teaching until further notice or postponed the start of the summer semester (Impact of COVID-19 on studying abroad in Europe: Overview 2020; How is COVID-19 affecting schools in Europe? 2020), others have suspended all on-campus activities, including face-to-face teaching and replaced them by online and remote education.
The remote teaching of online lab courses provides many compensations. It provides a safe alternative for investigational operations that might have safety risk considerations, and it helps reduce the required asset and maintenance costs and retain the lab space (Baher 1999; Lee et al. 2002; Svajger and Valencic 2003). Besides, it helps students who are geographically dispersed and provides accessibility to students who have disabilities that may affect their potential to access and operate physical lab equipment. Despite the concerns about the quality of learning outcomes of online laboratories compared to conventional hands-on laboratories, most empirical studies declare that online laboratories' learning outcomes are as good as conventional ones, and students who were engaged in remote lab education gained conceptual knowledge satisfactorily (Gustavsson et al. 2009; Kostaras et al. 2011; Lindsay and Good 2005; Nedic et al. 2003; Nickerson et al. 2007; Sicker et al. 2005). Besides, conducting the experiments in a teamwork-environment provides a collaborative experience and disengages any potential isolation perceived from the online learning process (Hoyer et al. 2004; Sebastian et al. 2003).
The impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on teaching labs' educational outcomes is not clear yet. Although numerous publications exist in the literature examined the epidemic impact on psychological behavior among undergraduates (Dhar et al. 2020; Maqsood et al. 2021; Chaturvedi et al. 2021; Tang et al. 2020) and on medical education (Hung et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2020; Loch et al. 2021; Shih et al. 2020), no empirical study currently exists that evaluated the impact of the COVID‐19 on online Lab education, especially in engineering curricula. In this paper, we study how have hybrid online-flipped learning pedagogy of teaching laboratory courses impacted course learning outcomes in the Unit Operations Laboratory course in the chemical engineering program at Qatar University to alleviate the pandemic's impact COVID-19 confinement. The flipped teaching strategy, also known as blended, reverse, and inverted learning or classroom strategies (Bergmann and Sams 2012), is a relatively recent education methodology. It was known firstly as "Inverted classroom" (Lage et al. 2000; Steed 2012), where students prepare for the class by studying the material independently in advance, and then utilize the class time to further discuss the related skills and concepts (Garrison and Vaughan 2013; Hung 2014). This current study includes assessing Course Learning outcomes (CLOs) that are mapped to the Student Outcomes (SOs) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) for 46 students enrolled in the Unit Operations Laboratory course, a part of the undergraduate program in Chemical Engineering at Qatar University using determined Assessment Tools (ATs). The study was conducted in Spring 2020 to perceive how hybrid online teaching coupled with a flipped learning approach affects the corresponding educational outcomes' attainment.
Methodology
The online lab content was designed and prepared from scratch. The theoretical principles were taught on a whiteboard in the corresponding lab room to give students the same feeling of actual lab experience that they were used to before the pandemic. This was followed by explaining the experimental setup and then operating the equipment according to the prescribed experimental procedure. All these parts were filmed, wherein the length of each part of the video was designed to be within the recommended duration that should not exceed 20 min (Fadol et al. 2018). The videos were then edited professionally, uploaded on YouTube (Ahmed Mohamed Elkhatat 2020a, b), and the corresponding playlist link was announced to the students on the Qatar University's Blackboard platform (Alcorn et al.).
Online teaching was coupled with the flipped learning strategy to maximize the online teaching approach's benefits. Students were requested to watch the posted video in advance, while the assigned online lab time was devoted to developing students' critical thinking through collaborative discussions and in-depth problem-solving tutorials. Although leading collaborative discussions is much more challenging than delivering a traditional lecture, its effectiveness is higher than traditional lectures. (Kletz 2006). It is noteworthy that this teaching strategy might not succeed if students did not watch the video before attending the online lab session (Chen et al. 2014; Hao 2016; Lai and Hwang 2016). Hence, a pre-lab quiz was assigned at the beginning of each online session. Pre-lab quizzes were designed in multiple-choice question (MCQ) format to examine the students' understanding of the general principles covered in the video. The pre-lab quizzes utilize the Blackboard online testing tool, and students were given five minutes to finish the pre-lab quiz. At the end of the online lab session, each team receives a set of raw data collected from the experiment, and the team leader of each group was requested to assign the report tasks among his team members.
The impact of the hybrid flipped-online lab course approach on the students' learning achievements was evaluated through six assessment tools (ATs) that measure four-course learning outcomes (CLOs) that are mapped to four student outcomes (SOs) of the (ABET) (ABET 2019). The four ABET student outcomes, SO1, SO3, SO6, and SO7, evaluate students' ability to solve complex engineering problems, communicate effectively with a range of audiences, develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, and acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, respectively. The course learning outcomes mapped to ABET student outcomes CLO1, CLO2, CLO3, and CLO4, evaluate student's ability to analyze experimental results by utilizing acquired technical engineering knowledge, utilize technical literature to obtain the required physical properties, use appropriate software to solve equations and interpret experimental results, and prepare professional technical reports, respectively. These outcomes were measured using six assessment tools; (AT1), which is the sample calculation section in the lab report; (AT2), which is the analysis of data section in the lab report; (AT3), which is the interpretation and discussion section in the lab report; (AT4), which is the introduction and theory section in the lab report; (AT5), which is the Excel worksheet that contains calculations, tables and charts; and (AT6), which is the overall appraisal of the lab report that includes (in addition to the previous sections) report presentation, spelling and grammar, abstract, experimental setup/procedure, raw data, conclusions, and citations and references. Figure 1 illustrates the holistic mapping of assessment tools (ATs) to course learning outcomes (CLOs)to ABET students learning outcomes (SOs).
It is noteworthy that two other CLOs for this lab course were ignored in this study. One of them measures students' ability to safely and effectively carry out experiments in a group setting, and the other one measures students' ability to design experiments to measure specific data. The first CLO was considered while using the traditional teaching approach in Labs, but the hybrid online-flipped approach is assumed to be safe. Besides, students are also preparing the lab report in the same group setting throughout the semester. Hence this CLO becomes inapplicable in this study. On the other hand, the other CLO was measured separately as a homework assignment, so it is practically independent of the teaching method.
In this work, an empirical investigation of course learning outcomes was studied utilizing a pool of 46 chemical engineering students enrolled in the Unit Operations Laboratory course. A quasi-experimental method was adopted, in which two teaching approaches were used in the same semester and for the same students. A traditional lab approach was used in teaching three experiments (EXP1 through EXP3) before the COVID-19 confinement, while a hybrid online-flipped lab approach was used in teaching four experiments (EXP4 through EXP7) during the COVID-19 confinement, as indicated in Table 1.
Two minor limitations associated with the current study should be considered with their contribution and can be alleviated in future research. The first limitation is that this study was conducted on female students only. Ideally, both genders should be involved in future studies to investigate any potential differences between their educational experiences and validate the anticipated equality in educational attainments. The second limitation is that the study should be reproduced in appropriate circumstances without potential physiological effects such as the predominance of stress and anxiety among home-quarantined students who are affected by the pandemic COVID-19 confinement, to validate the impact of the hybrid online-flipped teaching approach on the attainment of CLOs (Dhar et al. 2020; Maqsood et al. 2021; Chaturvedi et al. 2021; Tang et al. 2020).
All ATs, CLOs, and SOs data were standardized into a continuous scale of 0 to 100-point distribution and presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4. This distribution provides a more precise assessment and is more sensitive to differences among different ratings, making them easier to interpret (Cummins and Lau 2005; Nietfeld et al. 2006). The 100-point distribution was achieved by applying the following equation:
where \({X}_{\text{S}}\) is the standardized score, \(X\) score to be converted, \({S}_{\text{min}}\) is the minimum score possible on the scale, \({S}_{\text{max}}\) is the maximum score possible on the scale.
This standardized score also represents the following traditional percentage grade cutoff scale of the course evaluation system in compliance with academic grading in the United States universities and Qatar University (Qatar_University 2020; NAEP 2011) and reflects the achievement components and level of performance at each assessment tool:
-
\({X}_{\rm S}\ge 89.5\%\); represents an excellent performance and demonstrates independent thought and critical reflection on the related issues.
-
\({89.5\%>X}_{\rm S}\ge 84.5\%\); represents a very good performance and demonstrates a considerable amount of critical thought and independence for the related issues.
-
\({84.5\%>X}_{\rm S}\ge 79.5\%\); represents a good performance and demonstrates a concrete critical thought, analytical ability, and understanding of the related issues.
-
\({79.5\% >X}_{\rm S}\ge 74.5\%\); represents a satisfactory performance and demonstrates a clear understanding of the topic and an ability to engage with the debates in the related issues critically.
-
\({74.5\% >X}_{\rm S}\ge 69.5\%\); represents an adequate performance and demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the topic although average ability to engage with the debates in the related issues critically.
-
\({69.5\% >X}_{\rm S}\ge 64.5\%\); represents a limited performance and demonstrates a fair understanding of the topic, although the average ability to critically engage with the debates of the related issues.
-
\({64.5\% >X}_{\rm S}\ge 59.5\%\); represents a minimal performance, where minimum academic criteria are met. Besides, it demonstrates a minimum understanding of the topic with the lowest degree of judgment and independent thinking.
-
\({59.5\% >X}_{\rm S}\): represents a poor performance and demonstrates an absence of both judgment and independent thinking.
A confidence interval estimate (CI) of 80% (Gardner and Altman 1986; Lee 2016; Walter 1995) was applied to interpret and appraise the empirical investigation for its validity and applicability. Cl is an interval within which the parameter is expected to fall with a certain degree of confidence. The general formula is
The sample mean is the best point estimate, and it is the center of the confidence interval, and it is calculated as the arithmetic average of the data. The Critical value (Z-value) for 80% CI (α = 0.2) is 1.28. The sample size is the number of students involved in the study (46 students), and the estimated standard error is the average value of the error and was calculated according to the following formula:
For example, (from Table 3). The CLO1 of the EXP1 at 80% CI is 69.78 ± 5.88 means 80% of the data is located in the interval of 69.78 ± 5.88(i.e., between 63.9 and 75.66).
Results and discussion
Curriculum Learning Outcomes (CLOs 1, 2, 3 and 4) of the hybrid online-flipped teaching approach are mapped to four ABET student outcomes (SOs 1, 3, 6, and 7) and were evaluated using identified assessment tools (ATs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Each assessment tool was assessed based on a checklist of detailed rubrics developed and announced to students (Ahmed M. Elkhatat 2020a, b), except (AT5), which was evaluated based on the calculation and figures performed in the submitted Excel worksheet. The students' overall performance in each assessment tool (AT) throughout the experiments (EXP1 through EXP7) is presented in Table 2 and Fig. 2. The Curriculum Learning Outcomes (CLO) throughout the experiments (EXP1 through EXP7) is presented in Table 3 and Fig. 3.
The interpretation and discussion section in the lab report represented by (AT3), which evaluates the Curriculum Learning Outcome (CLO1), the student's ability to analyze experimental results by utilizing acquired technical engineering knowledge, shows a slight fall in the first two weeks of online Lab teaching (EXP4 and EXP5) from 81.52 ± 4.95 to 76.74 ± 4.29 and 74.78 ± 6.1. This fall was expected due to the sudden switch in the teaching method from face-to-face and hands-on practice to online, especially since the interpretation and discussion section is considered the most demanding part of the report, as it needs deep and critical thinking, coupled with utilizing technical literature to interpolate and discuss the results (Masoud 2017). However, adopting the hybrid online-flipped teaching approach helped mitigate sudden migration unfamiliarity with online teaching platforms and shortened the recovery time to acquire the learning outcome. Giving students enough time to prepare for the experiment in advance utilizes the online lab session to discuss the related skills and concepts further. Besides, the students' teamwork, critical thinking, and lifelong learning skills were boosted through the collaborative discussions in the flipped teaching approach, impacting students' interpretation and discussion section and shortened the (AT3) delay for two weeks. The favorable impact of flipped teaching is apparent when the (AT3) of EXP6 (94.78 ± 1.66) and EXP7 (96.96 ± 1.36) are compared with (AT3) of EXP1 (62.17 ± 5.95), EXP2 (69.67 ± 7.57), and EXP3 (81.52 ± 4.95).
On the other hand, the other two assessment tools measure course learning outcome CLO1, AT1, and AT2, which correspond to sample calculation and data analysis sections in the lab report, respectively, were not affected by switching to the online-flipped approach. AT2 shows a slight drop from (95.65 ± 3.85) to (89.35 ± 3.06) in the first week of switching before recovering quickly in the subsequent weeks (93.04 ± 2.59 trough 93.91 ± 2.59). Conversely, AT1 did not show any fall but rose from (90.22 ± 4.5) to (98.26 ± 1.54), reflecting the positive impact of flipped teaching approach on students' ability to analyze experimental results. The hybrid online-flipped teaching approach helps students interpret each experiment's significant outputs and correlates them with theoretical principles supported with references that underpin their arguments professionally. The obtained results agree with other studies on the influence of flipped class on the learning outcome (Akçayır and Akçayır 2018; O'Flaherty and Phillips 2015; Pierce and Fox 2012; Gomez-Tejedor et al. 2020).
Moreover, the student's ability to utilize technical literature to obtain the required knowledge and physical properties represented by the course learning outcome (CLO2), evaluated based on assessment tools AT3 and AT4 that measure the interpretation and discussion section and the introduction and theory section, respectively, was affected partially by the switch in the teaching approach. Although the online-flipped teaching approach influence (AT3) as discussed earlier, it has no impact on (AT4). This is because the introduction and theory section requires students to review the literature on the experiment, and the overall improvement in (AT4) is because students became familiar with rephrasing techniques of rewording the introduction and theory section.
The hybrid online-flipped teaching approach exhibits a measurable effect on the course learning outcome (CLO3) that assesses students' ability to use appropriate software to solve equations and interpret experimental results. This CLO that was evaluated using the student's Excel Worksheet (AT5) shows improvement in students' performance from (90.22 ± 4.5) to (98.26 ± 1.54) on the first week of the new teaching approach. In addition to the hybrid online-flipped teaching approach, this growth is also coupled with students' awareness of using the Microsoft Excel software to solve equations, analyze data, and interpret experimental results.
The improvement in preparing professional technical reports reflected in (CLO4) and assessed by a full lab report (AT6) demonstrates continuous improvement throughout the course from (71.16 ± 5.54) to (94.83 ± 0.82) throughout the seven experiments. This improvement is due to the assorted efforts done by students' contributions in all report sections, supported with the hybrid online-flipped learning approach, which enables a sustainable performance of the lab experiments effectively and helps mitigate the pandemic COVID-19 confinement.
The other interesting finding in this study is that the online-flipped learning approach reduces the academic gap among students declined throughout the course progress, illustrated in Tables 2 and 3 and Figs. 2b and 3b. The averages of ClO and AT deviations within the 80% confidence interval have declined (from 5.68 to 0.71) and (from 5.65 to 0.8), respectively. Correspondingly, the overall students' performance, evaluated through ABET student outcomes (SOs), illustrated in Table 4 and Fig. 4, shows how the hybrid online-flipped teaching approach helps develop attaining the relevant SOs and reducing the academic gap among students throughout the experiments.
Conclusion
The hybrid online-flipped teaching approach can be considered a potent approach to mitigate the destructive effect of stopping the traditional lab teaching approach on learning outcomes. Results show that the flipped teaching approach helped mitigate the sudden switch in the teaching method from face-to-face and hands-on practice to online, and it recovered the migration unfamiliarity with online teaching platforms. Besides, it boosted the students' teamwork, critical thinking, and learning skills through the collaborative discussions in the online sessions. Generally, the hybrid online-flipped lab teaching approach helped to achieve a continuous development of attaining the relevant course learning outcome throughout the experiments. Despite some temporary slight reductions in attaining some demanding learning outcomes within the first week of the switch in the teaching approach, particularly, the student's ability to analyze experimental results by utilizing acquired technical engineering knowledge, the student's ability to prepare professional technical reports, and the student's ability to utilize technical literature to obtain the required knowledge and physical properties, the flipped approach helped reduce the recovery time required to attain the learning outcome. Even it improved them in the subsequent weeks. Students' ability to appropriate software for solving equations and interpreting experimental results showed a continuous improvement without delay due to the switch in teaching mode. This is because of students' awareness of using the Microsoft Excel software. Furthermore, the academic gap among students decreased significantly after adopting the hybrid teaching approach. Although the overall improvement in the student's ability to utilize technical literature to obtain the required knowledge and physical properties, this improvement can be attributed to the assorted efforts done by students' contributions in all report sections, hence flipped approach has a minimum impact on this learning outcome. Despite this study's mentioned limitations, the hybrid online-flipped teaching approach is a promising lab pedagogy approach. It can be sustained in the future to facilitate the teaching of lab courses, even in normal conditions, to optimize resources and avail the delivery of such courses to a larger audience who may have various obstacles to attending traditional lab courses.
Data availability
All data analysed are contained in the paper.
References
ABET (2019) Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2019–2020. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2019-2020/#GC3. Accessed 10 June 2020
Akçayır G, Akçayır M (2018) The flipped classroom: a review of its advantages and challenges. Comput Educ 126:334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
Alcorn RL, Cane DE, Chasen ML, Chi TR, Gilfus SR, Perian S, Pittinsky ML (Assignee: Blackboard, Inc., Washington, DC US) (2009) Internet-based education support system and methods. US PATENT (USOO7493396 B2). https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b4/ea/3d/0867c635639027/US7558853.pdf
Armstrong P (2020) Bloom's taxonomy. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/. Accessed 10 June 2020
Baher J (1999) Articulate virtual labs in thermodynamics education: a multiple case study. J Eng Educ 88(4):429–434
Bergmann J, Sams A (2012) Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day: ISTE and ASCD
Bisantz AM, Paquet VL (2002) Implementation and evaluation of a multi-course case study for framing laboratory experiments. J Eng Educ 91(3):299–307
Burnett PC, Pillay H, Dart BC (2004) The influences of conceptions of learning and learner self-conception on high school students’ approaches to learning. Sch Psychol Int 24(1):54–66
Chaturvedi K, Vishwakarma DK, Singh N (2021) COVID-19 and its impact on education, social life and mental health of students: a survey. Child Youth Serv Rev 121:105866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105866
Chen Y, Wang Y, Kinshuk, Chen N-S (2014) Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Comput Educ 79:16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004
Cummins RA, Lau ALD (2005) Personal wellbeing index-school children, 3rd edn. Deakin University, School of Psychology
Darwazeh AN (2017) A new revision of the [revised] bloom's taxonomy
Dhar BK, Ayittey FK, Sarkar SM (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on psychology among the University Students. Glob Chall. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.202000038
Eklund-Myrskog G (1998) Students’ conceptions of learning in different educational contexts. High Educ 35(3):299–316
Elkhatat AM (2020a) Online unit operation lab (theory, exp. setup and operation. https://www.youtube.com/user/medoKhatat/playlists. YouTube
Elkhatat AM (2020b) Title page and rubrics components for unit operation lab (CHME325). Qatar University, Department of Chemical Engineering. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342109215_Title_Page_and_Rubrics_Components_for_Unit_Operation_Lab_CHME342109325
Fadol Y, Aldamen H, Saadullah S (2018) A comparative analysis of flipped, online and traditional teaching: a case of female Middle Eastern management students. Int J Manag Educ 16(2):266–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.04.003
Flack K, Volino RJ (1999) Series-parallel heat exchanger experiment. J Eng Educ 88(1):27–30
Gardner MJ, Altman DG (1986) Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 292(6522):746–750. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.292.6522.746
Garrison DR, Vaughan ND (2013) Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: two case studies. Internet Higher Educ 18:24–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.001
Gomez-Tejedor JA, Vidaurre A, Tort-Ausina I, Mateo JM, Serrano MA, Meseguer-Duenas JM et al (2020) Data set on the effectiveness of flip teaching on engineering students’ performance in the physics lab compared to traditional methodology. Data Brief 28:104915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104915
Gustavsson I, Nilsson K, Zackrisson J, Garcia-Zubia J, Hernandez-Jayo U, Nafalski A et al (2009) On objectives of instructional laboratories, individual assessment, and use of collaborative remote laboratories. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 2(4):263–274
Hao Y (2016) Exploring undergraduates’ perspectives and flipped learning readiness in their flipped classrooms. Comput Hum Behav 59:82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.032
How is Covid-19 affecting schools in Europe? (2020). https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/how-covid-19-affecting-schools-europe_en
Hoyer H, Jochheim A, Rohrig C, Bischoff A (2004) A multiuse virtual-reality environment for a tele-operated laboratory. IEEE Trans Educ 47(1):121–126
Hung H-T (2014) Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Comput Assist Lang Learn 28(1):81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.967701
Hung M, Licari FW, Hon ES, Lauren E, Su S, Birmingham WC et al (2020) In an era of uncertainty: impact of COVID-19 on dental education. J Dent Educ. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12404
Impact of COVID-19 on studying abroad in Europe: overview (2020) https://www.study.eu/article/impact-of-covid-19-on-studying-abroad-in-europe-overview
Johnson SH, Luyben WL, Talheim DL (1995) Undergraduate interdisciplinary controls laboratory. J Eng Educ 84(2):133–136
Kletz T (2006) Training by discussion. Educ Chem Eng 1(1):55–59. https://doi.org/10.1205/ece.06006
Kostaras N, Xenos M, Skodras A (2011) valuating usability in a distance digital systems laboratory class. IEEE Trans Educ 54(2):308–313
Lage MJ, Platt GJ, Treglia M (2000) Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J Econ Educ 31(1):30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759
Lai C-L, Hwang G-J (2016) A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Comput Educ 100:126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.006
Lee DK (2016) Alternatives to P value: confidence interval and effect size. Korean J Anesthesiol 69(6):555–562. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2016.69.6.555
Lee W-J, Gu J-C, Li R-J, Ditasayabutra P (2002) A physical laboratory for protective relay education. IEEE Trans Educ 45(2):182–186
Lee M-H, Johanson RE, Tsai CC (2009) Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Sci Educ 92(2):191–220
Leva A (2003) A hands-on experimental laboratory for undergraduate courses in automatic control. IEEE Trans Educ 64(2):263–272
Lin CC, Tsai CC (2009) The relationships between students’ conceptions of learning engineering and their preferences for classroom and laboratory learning environments. J Eng Educ (JEE) 98(2):193–204
Lindsay E, Good M (2005) Effects of laboratory access modes upon learning outcomes. IEEE Trans Educ 48(4):619–631
Liu X, Zhou J, Chen L, Yang Y, Tan J (2020) Impact of COVID-19 epidemic on live online dental continuing education. Eur J Dent Educ 24(4):786–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12569
Loch C, Kuan IBJ, Elsalem L, Schwass D, Brunton PA, Jum’ah A (2021) COVID-19 and dental clinical practice: students and clinical staff perceptions of health risks and educational impact. J Dent Educ 85(1):44–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12402
Maqsood A, Abbas J, Rehman G, Mubeen R (2021) The paradigm shift for educational system continuance in the advent of COVID-19 pandemic: mental health challenges and reflections. Curr Res Behav Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2020.100011
Marshall DM, Summer M, Woolnough B (1999) Students’ conceptions of learning in an engineering context. High Educ 38(3):291–309
Marton F, Dall’Alba G, Beaty E (1993) Conceptions of learning. Int J Educ Res 19(3):277–300
Masoud MI (2017) Writing a laboratory report for senior electrical engineering courses Guidelines and recommendations. In: Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens
Moore DJ, Voltmer DR (2003) Curriculum for an engineering renaissance. IEEE Trans Educ 46(4):452–455
NAEP (2011) How is grade point average calculated? https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/hsts/howgpa.aspx. National Assessment of Educational Progress
Nedic Z, Macho tka J, Nafalski A (2003) Remote laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories. In: Frontiers in education conference vol 1. T3E–1–T3E–6, Westminster
Nickerson JV, Corter JE, Esche SE, Chassapis C (2007) A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education. Comput Educ 49(3):708–725
Nietfeld JL, Enders CK, Schraw G (2006) A Monte Carlo comparison of two measures of monitoring accuracy. Educ Psychol Measur 66:258–271
O’Flaherty J, Phillips C (2015) The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. Internet Higher Educ 25:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
Okamura AM, Richard C, Cutkosky MR (2002) Feeling is believing: using a force-feedback joystick to teach dynamic systems. J Eng Educ 91(3):345–349
Olinger DJ, Hermanson J (2002) Integrated thermal-fluid experiments in WPI’s discovery classroom. J Eng Educ 91(2):239–243
Pierce R, Fox J (2012) Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ 76(10):196. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7610196
Purdie N, Hattie J (2002) Assessing students’ conceptions of learning. Aust J Educ Dev Psychol 2:17–32
Qatar_University (2020) GRADE SYMBOLS. http://www.qu.edu.qa/students/registration/student-records/grade-symbols. Accessed 11 June 2020
Roger S (1979) Learning in the learner's perspective. I. Some common-sense conceptions. No. 76. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Stockholm
Sebastian JM, Garcia D, Sanchez FM (2003) Remote-access education based on image acquisition and processing through the Internet. IEEE Trans Educ 46(1):142–148
Shih G, Deer JD, Lau J, Loveland Baptist L, Lim DJ, Lockman JL (2020) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the education and wellness of US Pediatric Anesthesiology Fellows. Paediatr Anaesth. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14112
Sicker D, Lookabaugh T, Santos J, Barnes F (2005) Assessing the effectiveness of remote networking laboratories. In: Frontiers in education (FIE) conference, Indianopolis
Steed, A. (2012). The flipped classroom. Teaching Business & Economics, 16(3).
Svajger J, Valencic V (2003) Discovering electricity by computer- based experiments. IEEE Trans Educ 46(4):502–507
Tang W, Hu T, Hu B, Jin C, Wang G, Xie C et al (2020) Prevalence and correlates of PTSD and depressive symptoms one month after the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic in a sample of home-quarantined Chinese university students. J Affect Disord. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.009
Tsai CC (2004) Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: a phenomenographic analysis. Int J Sci Educ 26(14):1733–1750
Walter SD (1995) Methods of reporting statistical results from medical research studies. Am J Epidemiol 141(10):896–906. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117356
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to recognize the College of Engineering's support at Qatar University (Doha, Qatar) for contracting with Online Media Production and casting, filming, editing, and producing the instructional movies. The Qatar National Library funded the publication of this article.
Funding
Open access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and animals
The authors declare that no human and/or animals participate in the study. The data included are the students' outcomes, and they were used anonymously and that no information that can identify any students is used.
Informed consent
The authors consent not to have any conflicts of interest, no experiments were done on humans or animals, and all ethical standards were met therein in accordance with Qatar University policies and regulations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Elkhatat, A.M., Al-Muhtaseb, S.A. Hybrid online-flipped learning pedagogy for teaching laboratory courses to mitigate the pandemic COVID-19 confinement and enable effective sustainable delivery: investigation of attaining course learning outcome. SN Soc Sci 1, 113 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00117-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00117-6