Can we use online technology to rejig the traditional laboratory experience to improve student engagement?

Figures & data

Table 1. Distribution of score proportions to total student mark. The online quiz for the Model 2 laboratories was on a pass/fail basis.

Learning Activity	Number of Activities	Description	Proportion of score [%]
Midterm	1	Multiple choice quiz	10
Quiz for EXP 1 & 2 (Model 1)	2	In class quiz, 5 questions	2.5
Online Quiz – EXP 3 & 4 (Model 2)	2	5- questions per topic	Pass/fail
EXP 1–4 (Model 1 ands Model 2)	4	laboratory instructions, Face-to-face time in the laboratory, laboratory Report	25
Critical Reflection Questions (CTQs)	2	Short answer assignment for fluid mechanics in everyday life situations	10
Final exam (closed book)	1	Short answer questions	50

Figure 1. Flowcharts of the two models compared in the study. a) Model 1: Traditional laboratory where students spend 3 h with the laboratory demonstrator b) Model 2: pre-laboratory preparation can be done online, including a feedback loop, a reduced face-to-face time of 1 h with the experimental rig and reflection of laboratory in a laboratory report that can be handed in 2–3 days after the face-to-face session.

Table 2. Intended Learning Outcomes for CIVL2131 students.

ESSENTIAL LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Describe and explain a range of fundamental fluid mechanics concepts and processes using both text and illustrations (see Course Aims for details)
Solve quantitative fluid mechanics problems at the introductory level using complex reasoning and the selection of appropriate solutions (see Course Aims for details)
Perform a sequence of introductory level pre-laboratory calculations and associated fluid mechanics laboratory experiments
Write clear and accurate laboratory reports for the laboratory experiments using the given templates
DEVELOPING LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Work as a productive team member to conduct laboratory experiments and produce group laboratory reports.
Develop skills in working remotely on technical engineering problems with peers, including collecting data, communicating and reporting laboratory experiments

Table 3. Question in student survey.

Q1: The online lecture material prepared me for the experiments

Q2: I used the online lecture material for the practical laboratory sessions

Q3: I used the online lecture material several times for the preparation

Q4: The online quizzes stimulated my curiosity

Q5: The pre-laboratory activities stimulated my curiosity

Q6: The pre-laboratory quiz (gatekeeper) did prepare me better for the laboratory exercise*

Q7: I am more motivated to do the pre-laboratory work outside of regular class times

Q8: Splitting the laboratory into pre-laboratory, actual laboratory time and report made the data collection and face to face time more efficient

Q9: Generally, the structure of the Laboratory experiments 3 and 4 was better than for experiments 1 and 2

Q10: Submitting a digital copy is more convenient than handing in a hard copy

Q11: I prefer getting quick feedback on my performance in the laboratory report

Q12: Linking the experiments 3 and 4 to real world problems helped to understand the theory**

* Compared to the traditional laboratory without a gatekeeper.

** This question aims to get feedback on the deeper learning experience by reflecting on the topic covered in the laboratory. The theory itself was not more difficult than concepts covered in EXP1 and EXP2.

Table 4. Thematic analysis of the general student feedback from end-of-year survey (SeCAT).

Primary Outcome	Perception of Appreciation	Perception of Challenges
laboratory/Practical activities	Helpful in solidifying knowledge learnt in lectures (4)	Frustrating for 30% of students wait for 2–3 hours (Model 1)
	Model 2: Worked examples are related to lecture content	Draining with rush to submit report in 3 hours
	Model 2 experience enhance problem solving skills (6)	More direction needed to guide students
	Instruction was clear/visual comprehensible/ Enhance visualization of content (7)	Pre-practical quiz not well linked with practical session
	Change in laboratory layout from Model 1 to 2 resulted enhanced understanding of content	Some tutors made practical session hard to understand/unable to clearly explain practicals
	Model 2 Laboratory report encouraged practice of content (4)	Most experiments uninteresting
	Relating practice to theory/ concepts help improve understanding of content/enhance application (14)	Practicals were difficult to complete
	Provide visual representation of learning concepts/ content (10)	Inadequate support/marks unreflective contribution by group members
	Clearer instructions of Model 2 helped to explain difficult concepts/ theories (3)

Figure 2. Average student score (and variance) of the four experiments. Model 1 represented by (EXP1 & EXP2) and Model 2 by EXP3 & EXP4.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics and Pearson Correlation for CIVL2131 (N = 167). The grade scale for the average values (Mean) column is from Fail (1) to High Distinction (7). The four experiments show marks ‘out of 20’ and were not converted in this table.

Assessments and Learning Activities	Descriptive Statistics		Pearson Correlation
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Final exam score (r)	Sig. (1-tailed)
Midterm Exam	5.78	1.46	0.433	0.000
Quiz_Exp_1+ Exp2	6.71	1.29	0.085	0.137
Online Quiz Exp3	6.87	0.93	0.262	0.000
Online Quiz Exp4	6.83	1.07	0.330	0.000
EXP1 [6.25%]	16.48	3.44	−0.013	0.434
EXP2 [6.25%]	18.25	3.28	0.020	0.401
EXP3 [6.25%]	18.00	3.11	0.357	0.000
EXP4 [6.25%]	17.05	3.36	0.114	0.070
CTQ1 [5%]	6.33	2.13	0.565	0.000
CTQ2 [5%]	5.24	2.59	0.447	0.000

Table 6. Regression coefficient of assessment tasks and Pearson Correlation (N = 167). The t-statistic is the coefficient divided by its standard error, r is the regression coefficient and p indicates the statistical significance.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Std. Error	t	Sig. (p)	Correlations
	B				Final exam score (r)	(p)
Constant	3.651	2.725	1.340	0.182
MIDTERM EXAM	0.975	0.330	2.953	0.004	0.435	0.000
EXP3 [6.25%]	0.321	0.149	2.157	0.032	0.357	0.000
CTQ1 [5%]	1.249	0.247	5.052	0.000	0.566	0.000
CTQ2 [5%]	0.383	0.201	1.906	0.058	0.457	0.000

Figure 3. Graphical analysis of the student survey (see Table 3) for the experiments. a) depicts the average score of the survey with the 5-point Likert scale on the y-axis. b) The χ2 -goodness-of-fit test (ANOVA) and c) the asymptotical significance test (ANOVA).