The continual growth of antenna-based technologies has created an exponential demand for well-qualified workforce of antenna engineer/researchers, but the expertise for a smooth transition into job market is lagging. This study presents the effectiveness of using hybrid-flipped model integrated with educational technologies in a graduate Antenna Theory and Design course, and the influence it has on orienting students toward antenna research. This is important because graduate research in emerging technologies with good results will open the gateway for job and the prospect of a scholarship for higher education. The effectiveness of the proposed study is evaluated using the following metrics: (a) student response to the hybrid-flipped learning, (b) impact of educational technology on student learning, and (c) educational outcome toward antenna engineering research. Result of the study indicates that the number of students choosing antenna research increased from 14% in 2014–15 to 42% in 2015–16 and reaching to 70% in 2016–17, and the number of students for year 2017–18 is 77% Results of the study also reflect research in diverse antenna technologies with good research output to merit publication in journals of international repute.
TerenziniPTCabreraAFColbeckCFet al.
Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: students reported learning gains. J Eng Educ2001; 90: 123–130.
2.
MasonGShumanTRCookKE.Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper division engineering course. IEEE Trans Educ2013;
56: 430–435.
3.
DelozierSJRhodesMG.Flipped classrooms: a review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educ Psychol Rev2017;
29: 141–151.
4.
RavishankarJEppsJAmbirairajahE.A flipped mode teaching approach for large and advanced electrical engineering courses. Eur J Eng Educ2017;
43: 413–426.
5.
OrlichDC., Robert JH, Richard CC et al. Teaching strategies: guide to effective instruction, 10th edition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, USA, 1 January 2012.
6.
LewinDRSeiderWDSeaderJD.Integrated process design instruction. Comput Chem Eng2002;
26: 295–306.
7.
RadcliffePJKumarD.Is problem-based learning suitable for engineering education. Australas J Eng Educ2017;
21: 81–88.
8.
MillsJETreagustDF. Engineering education – is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australas J Eng Educ2014; 30: 1–16.
9.
BrasslerMDettmersJ.How to enhance interdisciplinary competence-interdisciplinary problem-based learning versus interdisciplinary project-based learning. Interdiscipl J Problem Based Learn2017;
11: 1–15.
10.
LarmerJMergendollerJBossS.Setting the standard for project-based learning. Alexandria, USA: ASCD, 2015.
11.
MorkusHBarbelM. Innovative 3D animations for teaching electromagnetic field theory and its mathematics in undergraduate engineering. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on higher education advances, Universitat Poyltecnica De Valencia, Valencia, France, 2017, pp.625–632,
12.
GencHHAydinS.Education on visualization of some complex physics problems in programming environment. Comput Appl Eng Educ2016;
24: 876–882.
13.
LeeJSBlackwellSDrakeJet al.
Taking a leap of faith: redefining teaching and learning in higher education through project-based learning. Interdiscipl J Problem Based Learn2014;
8: 19–31.
14.
YadavAVinhMShaverGMet al.
Case-based instruction: improving students conceptual understanding through cases in a mechanical engineering course. J Res Sci Teach2014;
51: 659–677.
15.
YadavAShaverGMMeckelP.Lessons learned: implementing the case-teaching method in a mechanical engineering course. J Eng Educ2010;
99: 55–69.
16.
Karabulut-IlguACherrezNJJahrenT. A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. Br J Educ Technol. 2018; 49: 398–411.
17.
RugeGCormackCM.Building and constructing students skills development for employability-reframing assessment for learning in discipline-specific contexts. Archit Eng Des Manage2017;
13: 365–383.
18.
BjornK. Lecture, flip, integrate and focus: a case study on stepwise transformation of an industrial networking course from lecturing to integrated team learning. In: Proceedings of 11th international technology, education and development conference, Valencia, Spain, 6–8 March 2017.
19.
KanelopoulosJPananikolanKAZalimidisP.Flipping the classroom to increase students engagement and interaction in a mechanical engineering course on machine design. Int J Eng Ped2017;
7: 19–34.
20.
ReilsemaCKhosraviHFlemingMet al. Analyzing the learning pathways of students in a large flipped engineering course. In: Partridge H. (ed.) Me, Us, IT! Proceedings ASCILITE2017: 34th international conference on innovation, practice and research in the use of educational technologies in tertiary education, Australia: University of Southern Queensland, pp.372–381.
21.
UnalZUnalA.Comparison of student performance, student perception, and teacher satisfaction with traditional versus flipped classroom models. Int J Instruct2017;
10: 145–164.
22.
Karabulut-IlguAYaoSSavolainenPet al. Student perceptive on the flipped-classroom approach and collaborative problem-solving process. J Educ Comput Res, 2018; 56: 513–537.
23.
BesterfieldS, MaryJACynthiaSet al.
Characteristics of freshman engineering students: models for determining student attrition in engineering. J Eng Educ1997;
86: 139–149.
24.
Matthew WO, Sheri DS, Gary L, et al.
Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. J Eng Educ2008;
97: 259–278.
25.
Aracele Garcia de OliveiraFMarceloFEllenB. Francine, from flipped classroom theory to the personalized design of learning experience. In: MOOCS.FIE’15 proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Washington, DC, USA, 2100–24 October 2015.
26.
KranrchenkoCAK. Attention retention: ensuring your educational content is engaging your students. In: Uskov V, Howlett R and Jain L (eds) Smart education and e-learning., Vilmoura, Portugal, SEEL, 2017; 358–370.
27.
ThaiNTWeverBDVickieM. The impact of flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: looking for the best blend of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Comput Educ, 2017; 107: 113–126.
28.
PrinceM.Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ2004;
93: 223–231.
29.
BagnoEEylonBS.From problem solving to a knowledge structure: an example from the domain of electromagnetism. Am J Phys1997;
65: 726–736.
30.
CohenMBZajicA. Revitalizing electromagnetic education with the flipped classroom. In: 2015 USNC-URSI radio science meeting (joint with AP-S symposium), IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19–24 July 2015.
31.
BergerAJ. Flipping the electromagnetic theory classroom. In: Proceeding of education and training in optics and photonics, Hangzhou, China: Education and Training in Optics and Photonics 2017, 29–31 May 2017. 2017, paper no. ID104522N.
32.
StickelM. Electromagnetism with the invested inverted classroom approach: student perception and lesson learned. In: The Proceedings of 121st ASEE annual conference and exposition, IN, USA: American Society for Engineering Education, Indianapolis, 2014; 1–15.
33.
MillsJETreagustDF.Engineering education – is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian J Eng Educ2014; 30: 1–16.
34.
ChristensenLDuXThraneM.Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. Eur J Eng Educ2008;
33: 283–295.
35.
EnglishMCKitA.Student self-regulated learning in problem-and -project-based learning. Interdiscipl J Problem Based Learn2013;
7: 128–150.
36.
NotariMBaumgartnerAHerzonW.Social skills as predictors of communication, performance and quality of collaboration in project-based learning. J Comput Assist Learn2014;
30: 132–147.
37.
BrasslerMDettmersJ.How to enhance interdisciplinary competence-interdisciplinary problem-based learning versus interdisciplinary project-based learning. Interdiscipl J Problem Based Learn2017; 11: 1–15.
38.
BuntingFChivilleRA.Vector: a hands-on approach that makes electromagnetic relevant to students. IEEE Trans Educ2009;
52: 350–359.
39.
LombardiMM.Authentic learning for the 21st century. Louisville, USA: Educause Learning Initiative, 2007; 1–12.
40.
KundraDSurekaA. An experience report on teaching compiler design concepts using case-based and project-based learning approaches. In: Eight international conference on technology for education, Mumbai, India: IEEE, 2016, pp.216–219.
41.
BabouGMOfferITBappaAS. Why research-informed teaching in engineering education? A review of the evidence. Eur J Eng Educ2016; 42: 323–335.
42.
PotterCMerveEVD.Perception, imagery, visualization, and engineering graphics. Eur J Eng Educ2003;
28: 117–133.
43.
CadmusRRJr.A video technique to facilitate the visualization of physical phenomena. Am J Phys1990;
58: 397–399.
44.
MorkusHBarbelM. Innovative 3D animations for teaching electromagnetic field theory and its mathematics in undergraduate engineering. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on higher education advances, Valencia, France: Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, 2017, pp.625–632.
45.
KohCTonHCTanKCet al.
Investigating the effect of 3D simulation-based learning on the motivation and performance of engineering students. J Eng Educ2017;
14: 237–251.
46.
LisR.Role of visualization in engineering education. Adv Sci Technol Res J2014;
8: 111–118.
47.
KatsioloudisPDickersonVJovanovicMVet al.
Use of dynamic visualization for engineering technology industrial technology and science education students: implications on ability to correctly create a sectional view sketch. J Technol Educ2016;
28: 19–36.
48.
GencHHAydinS.Education on visualization of some complex physics problems in programming environment. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Wiley Publications 2016; 24: 876–882.
49.
VimonsatitVHuttT.Civil students response to visualization learning experience with building information models. Australas J Eng Educ2016;
21: 27–38.
50.
DoriYJBelcherJ.How does technology enabled active learning affect undergraduate students understanding of electromagnetism concepts?J Learn Sci2005;
14: 243–279.
51.
JohnPWheelerS.The digital classroom: harnessing technology for the future of learning and technology. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group, 10 September 2012.
52.
GedikN.Examining the conceptualization of instructional technology in Turkey. Contemp Educ Technol2017;
8: 76–98.
53.
MilkovaEPekarkovaSSalemAM.Information and communication technology in education-current trends. MATEC Web Conf2016;
76: 04022
54.
Andrew M, Chris H, Chuong D et al. MOOCS and technology to advance learning and learning research (ubiquity symposium), Ubiquity, Association for Computing Machinery(ACM) June 2014; 1–11.
55.
McKnightKO’MaleyKRubicRet al.
Teaching in a digital age: how educators use technology to improve student learning. J Res Technol Educ2016; 48: 194–211.
56.
JanetHJohnH.Implications of shifting technology in education. TechTrends2014;
58: 16–25.
57.
LeeJChoiH.What effects learners higher order thinking in technology-enhanced learning environments? The effects of learner factors. Comput Educ2017;
115: 143–152.
58.
MaclarenPSingamemniSWilsonDJ.Technologies for engineering education. Aust J Multi-Discipl Eng2015;
9: 185–192.
GuptaVJainN.Harnessing information and communication technologies for effective knowledge creation: shaping the future. J Ent Info Manage2017;
30: 831–855.
61.
SoeiroARayoCUrasF. Practical outputs to apply digital tools in lifelong learning: modern project. In: Proceedings of EDULEARN17 conference, Barcelona, Spain, 3–5 July 2017, pp.2869–2872.
62.
HajhashmiKCaltabianoNAndersonN.Integrating digital technologies in the classroom: lecture views on the flipped classroom approach. Aust Int J Rural Educ2016;
26: 18–29.
63.
IskandarMF. Technology based global revitalization of electromagnetic education. In: 2015 IEEE international symposium on antennas and propagation & USNC/URSI nation radio science meeting, IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19–24 July 2015.
64.
IskandarMF.Technology-based electromagnetic education. IEEE Trans Microwave Theory Tech2002;
50: 1015–1020.
65.
JongDMartinEZamaraoJMet al.
The integrating of computer simulation and learning support: an example from THE physics domain of collisions. J Res Sci Teach1999;
36: 597–615.
66.
PierreBGuiLMarlenePet al. Enhancing student learning outcomes with simulation-based pedagogies. Perth, WA, Australia: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning and Tertiary Education, 29 November to 2 December 2015.
67.
CarlsenDDAndreT.Use of microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome students’ preconceptions about electric circuits. J Comput Based Instruct1992;
19: 105–109.
68.
MackayM. Professional development seen as employment capital. Profess Dev Educ, 2015; 43: 140-155.
69.
RugeGCormackCM. Building and constructing students skills development for employability reframing assessment for learning in discipline-specific contexts. Archit Eng Des Manage2017; 13: 365–383.
70.
ThomasBSwamySK. Enhancing social competence of engineering students through holistic education. In: International conference on recent trends in engineering science and management, Bangalore, India, 2015, pp.4901–4908.
71.
ChaoCYChenYTChuangKY.Exploring students learning attitude and achievement in a flipped learning supported computer aided design curriculum; a study in high school. Comput Appl Eng Educ2015;
23: 514–526.
72.
WallaceWLWalkerJDBrasebyAMet al.
Now, what happens during class? Using team based learning to optimize the role of enterprise within the flipped classroom. J Excell Coll Teach2014;
25: 253–273.
73.
ByrneEPMullalyG.Educating engineers to embrace complexity and control. Proc Instn Mech Engrs2014;
167: 241–248.
74.
ArakakiD.Lecture videos to supplement electromagnetic classes at Cal Poly Luis Obispo. Tempe, USA: American Society for Engineering Education, 20 April 2017: 1–9.
75.
GuoPJKimJRubinR. How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos. In: First ACM conference on learning, Atlanta, USA: Association of Computing Machinery(ACM), March 04–05 2014, pp.41–50.
76.
Taotao L, Joanne L, and Michael W. Students perceptions of the value of using videos as pre-class learning experience in the flipped learning. TechTrends2016;
60: 245–252.
77.
YousefAMFChattiMASchroederU. Video-based learning: a critical analysis of research published in 2003–2013, and future visions. In: The 6th international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning, 2014, pp.112–119.
78.
BallanisCA.Antenna theory analysis and design. 4th edition, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley and sons, 18th March 2016.
79.
PozarDM.Microstrip antennas. Proc IEEE, IEEE Antenna and Propagation Society and Propagation Society, 1992;
80: 79–91.
80.
LukKMMakCLChowYLet al.
Broadband microstrip patch antennas. Electron Lett, IET,1998;
34: 1442–1443.
81.
RameshG.Progress in microstrip antennas. IETE Tech Rev2001;
18: 85–98.
82.
WengLHGuoYCShiXWet al.
An overview of defected ground structure. Prog Electromagn Res2008;
7: 173–189.
83.
KhandelwalKMKanayiaBKumarS.Defected ground structure: fundamentals, analysis, and applications in modern wireless trends. Int J Antenna Propag2017; 2017: 1–22.
84.
Bhuiyan MDS, Karmakar MC. Defected ground structure for microwave applications. In: J.Webster (ed.), Wiley Encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering.
John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey, USA, 2014: 1–31.
85.
AryaAKMachavaramKPatnaikA. Defected ground structure in the perspectives of microstrip antennas: a review. Frequenz Journal of RF-Engineering and Telecommunications, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co 2011: 64: 79–84.
86.
GianvittorioJPSamiYR.Fractal antennas: a novel antenna miniaturization technique, and applications. IEEE Antennas Propag Mag2002;
44: 22–36.
WernerDHHauptRLWernerPL.Fractal antenna engineering: the theory and design of fractal antenna array. IEEE Antennas Propag Mag1999;
41: 37–59.
89.
RehaAEl AmriABenhmamouchOet al.
Fractal antennas: a novel miniaturizing technique for wireless networks. Trans Netw Commun2014;
2: 165–193.
90.
SzeJYWongKL.Slotted rectangular microstrip antenna for bandwidth enhancement. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag2000;
48: 1149–1152.
91.
BhardwajSSamiYR.A comparative study of C-shaped, E-shaped, and U-shaped patch antennas. Microw Opt Technol Lett2012;
54: 1746–1757.
92.
EnghetaNZiolskowskiRW.Metamaterials: physics and engineering explorations. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
93.
CuiTJTangWXYangXMet al. Metamaterials beyond crystals, nanocrystals, and quasicrystals. New Jersey, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
94.
Rhee JY,YooYJ, Kim KWet al. Metamaterial -based perfect absorption. Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications, New Jersey, USA: Taylor and Francis Group, 2014; 28: 1541–1580.
95.
CapoliniF.Theory and phenemena of materials, 1st edition, New Jersey, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 1st October 2009.
96.
KovacsPUrbanecT.Electromagnetic band gap structures: practical tips and advice for antenna engineers. Radio Eng2012;
21: 414–421.
97.
YangFSamiYR.Electromagnetic band gap structure in antenna engineering (The Cambridge RF and Microwave Engineering Series).
India: Cambridge Press, 2010.
98.
AbdelhamidMRahimMKAMusaU.Electromagnetic band gap structure for antenna design. IOSR J Electron Commun Eng2015;
10: 25–27.
99.
SoukoulisCM.Photonic band gap materials, 1st edition, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
100.
KumarMNathV. Analysis of low mutual coupling compact multiband microstrip patch antenna and its array using defected ground structure. Emerg Sci Technol2015; 19: 866–874.
101.
WeiKLiJWangLet al.
S-shaped periodic defected ground structure to reduce microstrip antenna array mutual coupling. Electron Lett2016;
52: 1288–1290.
102.
GhoshCKMandalBParuiSK.Mutual coupling reduction of a dual frequency microstrip antenna array buy using U-shaped defected ground structure and inverted U-shaped microstrip resonator. Prog Electromagn Res C2014;
48: 61–68.
103.
ZhuJEleftheriadesGV.A SIMPLE approach for reducing mutual coupling in two closely spaced metamaterial inspired monopole antennas. Antennas Wirel Propag Lett2010;
9: 379–382.
104.
Bait-SumailamMMSiddiquiOFRamahiOM.Mutual coupling reduction between microstrip patch antennas using slotted-complementary split-ring resonators. Antennas Wirel Propag Lett2010;
9: 876–879.
105.
IslamMTAlamMS.Design of high impedence electromagnetic surfaces for mutual coupling reduction in patch antenna array. Materials2013; 143–155.
106.
GhoshJGhoshalSMitraDet al.
Mutual coupling reduction between closely placed microstrip patch antenna using meander line resonator. Prog Electromagn Res Lett2016;
59: 115–122.
107.
LemaGGTesfamariamGMohammedMI.A novel elliptical cylindrical antenna array for radar application. IEEE Trans Antenna Propag2016;
64: 1681–1688.
108.
LemaGGHailuDHIsmailMI.Performance evaluation of elliptical-cylindrical antenna array using Sade optimized hyper beam. Indones J Electr Eng Comput Sci2017;
7: 178–188.
109.
FitsumDSMaliDMohammedI.Dual band proximity coupled feed microstrip patch antenna with T-slot on radiating patch and dumbbell shaped defected ground structure. Indones J Electr Eng Comput Sci2016;
3: 435–440.
110.
FitsumDSMaliDMohammedMI.Bandwidth enhancement of rectangular microstrip patch antenna using defected ground structure. Indones J Electr Eng Comput Sci2016;
3: 428–434.
111.
GebremedhinYBekeleSMohammedMI.Performance evaluation of fractal antenna array for satellite communication. Indones J Electr Eng Comput Sci2016;
3: 356–368.
