The COVID-19 pandemic has affected learning at all levels; particularly, in higher education, where levels of independence and self-motivation are required during distance learning. In engineering, distance learning adds another degree of difficulty to an already complex field. Comprehension in engineering requires the repeated use of diagrams, high-level charts, and practice problems. Mobile devices, combined with a technology-enhanced curriculum, provide an excellent platform for learning in engineering as it allows for clear illustration and the transfer of complex ideas at any time and place. In alignment with the social-constructivist framework, these facets of mobile technology provide additional avenues for student engagement and the extension of learning goals. This study utilized the Triple E Framework and a mixed methods approach to investigate the impact of mobile devices on engineering students’ learning in a thermal-fluids course. The overall aim was to understand how mobile technology, combined with a technology-enhanced curriculum, impacts engineering students’ engagement, enhancement, and extension of learning. Findings reveal that students perceived increased levels of engagement when utilizing mobile devices in their learning practices. However, instructional methods were identified to be the key factor leading to engagement. A small effect size of 0.37 was noticed, and a post hoc power analysis resulted in a test power of 0.55. Though a significant difference between students who did and did not utilize mobile devices was not apparent, students with university loaned tablets (iPads) had a larger increase in learning than students without. This paper is based on the author's master's thesis titled “Affordances of Mobile Technology to Facilitate Learning in Undergraduate Thermal-Fluid Sciences,” the represented data reflects content from the same.
BakicM. Affordances of Mobile Technology to Facilitate Learning in Undergraduate Thermal- Fluid Sciences. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. 2024 (Publication No. 30693109).
2.
GohardaniOGohardaniASDokterE, et al.Aeronautical engineering and aerospace engineering: a learner-centered teaching perspective in higher education. J Coll Sci Teach2014; 44: 64–71.
3.
ParkJJParkMJacksonK, et al.Remote engineering education under COVID-19 pandemic environment. Int J Multidiscip Perspect Higher Educ2020; 5: 160–166.
4.
RomneyCA. Tablet PC use in freshman mathematics classes promotes STEM retention. In: Proceedings from IEEE 41st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, South Dakota, October 12−15, 2011, DOI 10.1109/FIE.2011.6142773, pp. F1J–1–F1J–7, New York: IEEE.
5.
Kukulska-HulmeAVibergO. Mobile collaborative language learning: state of the art. Br J Educ Technol2018; 49: 207–218.
6.
Díaz-SainzGPérezGGómez-ComaL, et al.Mobile learning in chemical engineering: an outlook based on case studies. Educ Chem Eng2021; 35: 132–145.
7.
SharplesMTaylorJVavoulaGN. Towards a theory of mobile learning. 2nd ed.Cape Town: Sage, 2016.
8.
DeanAAnthonyBVahalaL. Addressing student retention in engineering and engineering technology through the use of a multidisciplinary freshman course. In: 2007 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, Hawaii, 24 June–27 June, 2007, DOI 10.18260/1-2-2692, pp.12.180.1–12.180.9. Washington, DC: ASEE.
9.
KvamP. The effect of active learning methods on student retention in engineering statistics. Am Stat2000; 54: 136–140.
10.
Anderson-RowlandM. Understanding freshman engineering student retention through a survey. In: 1997 ASEE Annual Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, June 15– 18, 1997, DOI: 10.18260/1-2-6850, pp.2.453.1–2.453.8, Washington, DC: ASEE.
11.
Hernández de MenéndezMAntonioJTudón-MartínezJ, et al.Active learning in engineering education. A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. Int J Interact Des Manuf2019; 13: 909–922.
12.
KuleyEMawSFonstadT, et al.Engineering student retention and attrition literature review. In: Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA), August 7, 2015, DOI: 10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5813, Toronto: CEEA.
13.
HashimMHHooverML. A theoretical framework for analyzing multicultural group learning. Lit Inf Comput Educ J2017; 8: 2707–2716.
14.
KolbL. Learning first, technology second: the educator's guide to designing authentic lessons. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education, 2017.
15.
SouvestreFAnastassovaMGonzalezE, et al.Learner-centered evaluation of an augmented reality system for embedded engineering education. In: 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Warsaw, Poland, September 7–10, 2014, pp. 31–34, New York: IEEE.
16.
WalkerR. Teaching learning and new technologies in higher education. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2020.
17.
AsgariSTrajkovicJRahmaniM, et al.An observational study of engineering online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE2021; 16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250041
18.
BurkeA. Student retention models in higher education: a literature review. College Univ2019; 94: 12–21.
19.
CarpenterJP. Weave students into engineering, don't weed them out. ASEE Prism2022; 32: 40.
20.
Corral-AbadEGómez GarcíaMJDiez-JimenezE, et al.Improving the learning of engineering students with interactive teaching applications. Comput Appl Eng Educ2021; 29: 1665–1674.
21.
PapadopoulouAPalaigeorgiouG. Interactive Video, Tablets and Self-paced learning in the classroom: Preservice teachers’ perceptions. In: 13th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Mannheim, Germany, October 28–30, 2016, ERIC Number ED571422, pp. 195–202. New York: CELDA.
22.
QadirJAl-FuqahaA. A student primer on how to thrive in engineering education during and beyond COVID-19. Educ Sci2020; 10: 236.
23.
FuchsK. Evaluating the technology-enhanced flipped classroom through the students’ eye: a case study. J e-Learning Res2021; 1: 13–21.
24.
Talib MA, Bettayeb A and Omer R. Analytical study on the impact of technology in higher education during the age of COVID-19: systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol 2021; 26: 6719–6746.
25.
ReimersFM. Learning from a pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on education around the world. Primary and secondary education during Covid-19: disruptions to educational opportunity during a pandemic. Cham: Springer, 2021.
26.
BartolicSMatzatUTaiJ, et al.Student vulnerabilities and confidence in learning in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Stud Higher Educ2022; 47: 2460–2472.
27.
BiwerFWiradhanyWOude EgbrinkM, et al.Changes and adaptations: how university students self-regulate their online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol2021; 12: 642593.
28.
TorunED. Online distance learning in higher education: E-learning readiness as a predictor of academic achievement. Open Praxis2020; 12: 191–208.
ShmelevaEFrouminI. Factors of attrition among computer science and engineering undergraduates in Russia. Вопросы образования2020; 3: 110–136.
31.
ZuluWVMuterekoS. Exploring the causes of student attrition in South African TVET colleges: a case of one KwaZulu-Natal Technical and Vocational Education and Training College. Interchange2020; 51: 385–407.
32.
TayebiAGómezJDelgadoC. Analysis on the lack of motivation and dropout in engineering students in Spain. IEEE Access2021; 9: 66253–66265.
33.
SenthilR. Enhancement of engineering education by incorporating active learning methodologies. J Eng Educ Transform2020; 34: 12–20.
34.
O’ConnorK. Constructivism, curriculum and the knowledge question: tensions and challenges for higher education. Stud Higher Educ2022; 47: 412–422.
35.
NaciriABabaMAAchbaniA, et al.Mobile learning in higher education: unavoidable alternative during COVID-19. Aquademia2020; 4: ep20016.
36.
HarrisonMHHernandezPAStevensML. Should I start at math 101? Content repetition as an academic strategy in elective curriculums. Sociol Educ2022; 95: 133–152.
37.
EllisGWRudnitskyANScordilisGE. Finding meaning in the classroom: learner-centered approaches that engage students in engineering. Int J Eng Educ2005; 21: 1148–1158.
38.
LombardiDShipleyTF, et al.The curious construct of active learning. Psychol Sci Public Interest2021; 22: 8–43.
39.
ShahRKKumarR. Concepts of learner-centred teaching. Shanlax Int J Educ2020; 8: 45–60.
40.
RaoVC. English for science and technology: a learner centered approach. English Specific Purposes World2014; 15.
41.
StephanEAStephanATWhislerL, et al.Engineering Learning Strategies Course Supports Student Retention. In: 2020 ASEE Southeastern Section Conference American Society for Engineering Education, Clemson, SC. Washington, DC: ASEE, 2020.
42.
AlviFShihC. An integrated thermal and fluids curriculum. In: 2000 ASEE Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, June 18–21, 2000, DOI 10.18260/1-2-8470, pp.5.98.1–5.98.8. Washington, DC: ASEE.
43.
SmithRNJensenMKKaminskiDA, et al.Development of an integrated thermal fluids engineering curriculum. In: Proceedings of the 2000 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, St. Louis, MI, June 18–21, 2000, DOI 10.18260/1-2-8302, pp. 1-185.227.1–5.227.11. Washington, DC: ASEE.
44.
StrevelerRLitzingerTMillerR, et al.Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: overview and future research directions. J Eng Educ2008; 97: 279–294.
45.
MinichielloAArmijoDMukherjeeS, et al.Developing a mobile application-based particle image velocimetry tool for enhanced teaching and learning in fluid mechanics: a design-based research approach. Comput Appl Eng Educ2021; 29: 517–537.
46.
ChewSLCerbinWJ. The cognitive challenges of effective teaching. J Econ Educ2021; 52: 17–40.
47.
HadjerrouitS. Learner-centered web-based instruction in software engineering. IEEE Trans Educ2005; 48: 99–104.
48.
RawatKRiddickGMooreL. Work in progress—integrating mobile Tablet-PC technology and Classroom Management Software in undergraduate electronic engineering technology courses. In: Proceedings from IEEE 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, November 2008, DOI 10.1109/FIE.2008.4720632, pp. S4D-23, New York: IEEE.
49.
AhmedVOpokuA. Technology supported learning and pedagogy in times of crisis: the case of COVID-19 pandemic. Educ Inf Technol2022; 27: 365–405.
50.
OprisIIonescuCCostinasS, et al.Challenges and opportunities to overcome the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on power engineering education. TEM J2020; 9: 1687–1691.
51.
KrouskaATroussasCSgouropoulouC. Mobile game-based learning as a solution in COVID-19 era: modeling the pedagogical affordance and student interactions. Educ Inf Technol2022; 27: 229–241.
52.
SinghalRKumarASinghH, et al.Digital device-based active learning approach using virtual community classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comput Appl Eng Educ2021; 29: 1007–1033.
53.
KonopkaCAdaimeMMoseleP. Active teaching and learning methodologies: some considerations. Creat Educ2015; 6: 1536–1545.
54.
AusatAMAMassangBEfendiM, et al.Can chat GPT replace the role of the teacher in the classroom: a fundamental analysis. J Educ2023; 5: 16100–16106.
55.
AllenTEBarkerSD. BME labs in the era of COVID-19: transitioning a hands-on integrative lab experience to remote instruction using gamified lab simulations. Biomed Eng Educ2021; 1: 99–104.
56.
StranfordSAOwenJAMercerF, et al.Active learning and technology approaches for teaching immunology to undergraduate students. Front Public Health2020; 8: 522325.
57.
AlamA. Media multitasking with M-learning technology in real-time classroom learning: analysing the dynamics in formal educational settings for the future of E-learning in India. In 2023 2nd International Conference on Smart Technologies and Systems for Next Generation Computing (ICSTSN), Villupuram, India, April 21–22, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ICSTSN57873.2023.10151509, pp. 1–6.
58.
ZaheerSButtSGnevashevaV, et al.Do mobile technology in the classroom really improve learning outcomes?Int J Eval Res Educ2018; 7: 188–193.
59.
MaketoLIssaTIssaT, et al.M-Learning adoption in higher education towards SDG4. Future Gener Comput Syst2023; 147: 304–315.
60.
GunnCYehiaS. Enriching the learning experience for civil engineering students through learner-centered teaching. J Profl Issues Eng Educ Pract2018; 144.
61.
MeehanKCSalmunH. Integrating technology in today's undergraduate classrooms: a look at students’ perspectives. J Coll Sci Teach2016; 46: 39–47.
62.
BruggemanBTondeurJStruyvenK, et al.Experts speaking: crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher education. Internet Higher Educ2021; 48: 100772.
63.
TrontJAmelinkCScalesGR. Student use of the tablet PC: impact on student learning behaviors. Adv Eng Educ2012; 3.
64.
WiseJCTotoRLimKY. Introducing tablet PCs: initial results from the classroom. In: Proceedings of 36th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. San Diego, CA, October 27–31, 2006, pp. 17–20. New York: IEEE.
65.
AndresACCejudo-LópezJMuñozF, et al.Graphics tablet technology in second year thermal engineering teaching. J Technol Sci Educ2013; 3: 102–112.
66.
FernandezAL. Using iPads and apple pencils to enhance the student learning experience in inorganic chemistry. Adv Teach Inorg Chem2020; 2: 79–93.
67.
GilanliogluIErtayZ. Taking images of notes by smartphone (Tin-S): a comparative study. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama2021; 11: 308–337.
68.
DrigasAKoukianakisLPapagerasimouY. An E-learning environment for nontraditional students with sight disabilities. In: IEEE Frontiers in Education 36th Annual Conference, December 2006, DOI 10.1109/FIE.2006.322633, pp. 23–27. New York: IEEE.
69.
LaabidiMJemniMAyedL, et al.Learning technologies for people with disabilities. J King Saud Univ - Comput Inf Sci2014; 26: 29–45.
70.
WashP. Taking advantage of mobile devices: using socrative in the classroom. J Teach Learn Technol2014; 3: 99–101.
71.
BrooDGKaynakOSaitSM. Rethinking engineering education at the age of industry 5.0. J Ind Inf Integr2022: 25.
72.
MannLChangRChandrasekaranS, et al.From problem-based learning to practice-based education: a framework for shaping future engineers. Eur J Eng Educ2021; 46: 27–47.
73.
McCabeDMeuterM. A student view of technology in the classroom: does it enhance the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education?J Mark Educ2011; 33: 149–159.
74.
ChiMTHWylieR. The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ Psychol2014; 49: 219–243.
75.
CollerBShernoffDJ. Video game-based education in mechanical engineering: a look at student engagement. Int J Eng Educ2009; 25: 308–317.
76.
Al-ShamsiJHAl-EmranMShaalanK. Understanding key drivers affecting students’ use of artificial intelligence-based voice assistants. Educ Inf Technol2022; 27: 8071–8091.
77.
Guerra-AntequeraJAntequera-BarrosoJRevuelta-DomínguezF. Degree of motivation and acquisition of visuospatial perception after the incorporation a video game in the learning of mathematical knowledge. Heliyon2022; 8: e10316.
78.
BolesW. Overcoming barriers to learning: a guide for academics. Strawberry Hills: QUT Department of eLearning Services, 2010.
79.
PeramunugamageARatnayakeUWKarunanayakaSP. Systematic review on mobile collaborative learning for engineering education. J Comput Educ2023; 10: 83–106.
80.
NorisMSaputroAUlimazA. STEM research trends from 2013 to 2022: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Educ2023; 6: 224–237.
81.
SudarginiYPurwantoA. The effect of teachers pedagogic competency on the learning outcomes of students. J Ind Eng Manage Res2020; 1: 1–8.
82.
LiuYZhaoLSuYS. The impact of teacher competence in online teaching on perceived online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 outbreak: a moderated-mediation model of teacher resilience and age. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19: 6282.
83.
FilgonaJSakiyaJGwanyDM. Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and students’ academic achievement: a theoretical overview. J Global Res Educ Soc Sci2022; 14: 14–44.
84.
KolbL. Learning first, technology second: in practice. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education, 2020.
85.
VygotskyLS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.
86.
MorchidN. The social constructivist response to educational technology. Int J English Lit Soc Sci2020; 5: 263–270.
87.
CreswellJWCreswellJD. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd., 2018.
88.
LichtmanM. Qualitative research for the social sciences. London: Sage Publications Inc., 2014.
89.
DawadiSShresthaSGiriRA. Mixed-methods research: a discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. J Pract Stud Educ2021; 2: 25–36.
90.
GrbichC. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2013.
91.
MillerRLStrevelerRANelsonMA, et al.Concept inventories meet cognitive psychology: using beta testing as a mechanism for identifying engineering student misconceptions. In: Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Portland, Oregon, June 12–15, 2005, DOI 10.18260/1-2-14620, pp. 1–18. Washington, DC: ASEE.
