Comparison of Academic Performance of Students in Online Vs Traditional Engineering Course

Devayan Debashis Bir 1
  • 1 Iowa State University, , United States of America


Universities in the U.S. typically offer to teach introductory engineering courses in large classes to tackle the increase in undergraduate engineering enrolment and to save on cost of teaching. Previous studies done on traditionally taught large classes have shown the negative effects it has on students and faculty. Many institutions use online courses to teach these large classes due to the flexibility they provide students with in their schedule and pace of learning, as well as being less expensive for the university. This study aimed to investigate the effect of online pedagogy on the academic performance of students enrolled in mechanics of materials course taught at a U.S. Midwestern University. The findings of the study reveal that the online pedagogy had a negative effect on student academic performance when compared with the traditionally taught group. This was true for all demographics (gender, enrolment status, nationality) and categories (high, medium and low academic performance) of students except for high performing students for whom online pedagogy shows promise.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Adrian, L. M. (2010). Active learning in large classes: Can small interventions produce greater results than are statistically predictable? The Journal of General Education, 59(4), 223-237.

  • 2. Al Nashash, H., & Gunn, C. (2013). Lecture capture in engineering classes: Bridging gaps and enhancing learning. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 69-78.

  • 3. Benson, L. C., Orr, M. K., Biggers, S. B., Moss, W. F., Ohland, M. W., & Schiff, S. D. (2010). Student-centered active, cooperative learning in engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(5), 1097-1110.

  • 4. Bir, D. & Ahn, B. (2016). Applicability of online Mechanics of Materials course for engineering undergraduate students. Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference, Erie, PA.

  • 5. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131-146

  • 6. Cakmak, M. (2009). The perceptions of student teachers about the effects of class size with regard to effective teaching process. The Qualitative Report, 14(3), 395-408.

  • 7. Cole, J. S., & Spence, S. W. (2012). Using continuous assessment to promote student engagement in a large class. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(5), 508-525.

  • 8. Cooper, J. L. & Robinson, P. (2000). The argument for making large classes seem small. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 81, 5-16.

  • 9. Cuseo, J. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. The Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 5-21.

  • 10. Eisenberg, E., Beer, F., & Johnston, E. R. (2009). Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and Dynamics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

  • 11. Evans, J. R., & Haase, I. M. (2001). Online business education in the twenty-first century: An analysis of potential target markets. Internet Research, 11(3), 246-260.

  • 12. Fata-Hartley, C. (2011). Resisting rote: The importance of active learning for all course learning objectives. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3), 36-39.

  • 13. Ghosh, R. (1999). The challenges of teaching large numbers of students in general education laboratory classes involving many graduate student assistants. Bioscene, 25(1), 7-11.

  • 14. Hejmadi, M. V. (2007). Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching large classes: Development and evaluation of a novel e-resource in cancer biology. Bioscience Education, 9(1), 1-12.

  • 15. Huba, M. E. & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campus: Shifting the focus from Teaching to Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

  • 16. Kilby, T. (2001). The direction of Web-based training: A practitioner’s view. The Learning Organization, 8(5), 194-199.

  • 17. Kryder, L. G. (2002). Large lecture format: Some lessons learned. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 88-93.

  • 18. Lindenlaub, J. C. (1981). A Hybrid lecture/self-study system for large engineering classes. Engineering Education, 72(3), 201-207.

  • 19. McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman C. E. (2007). Reforming a large lecture modern physics course for engineering majors using a PER-based design. AIP Conference Proceedings, 883(1), 34-37.

  • 20. Monks, J., & Schmidt, R. M. (2011). The impact of class size on outcomes in higher education. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 11(1), 1-17.

  • 21. Mora, M. C., Sancho-Bru, J. L., & Iserte, J. L. (2012). An e-assessment approach for evaluation in engineering overcrowded groups. Computers & Education, 59(2), 732-740.

  • 22. Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175-185.

  • 23. Orr, M., Benson, L., Ohland, M., & Biggers, S. (2008). Student study habits and their effectiveness in an integrated statics and dynamics class. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Pittsburg, PA.

  • 24. Rieber, L. J. (2004). Using professional teaching assistants to support large group business communication classes. Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), 176-178.

  • 25. Rutz, E., Eckart, R., E Wade, J., Maltbie, C., Rafter, C., & Elkins, V. (2003). Student Performance and Acceptance of Instructional Technology: Comparing Technology-Enhanced and Traditional Instruction for a Course in Statics. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 133-140.

  • 26. Sargent, L. D., Allen, B. C., & Frahm, J. A. (2009). Enhancing the experience of student teams in large classes: Training teaching assistants to be coaches. Journal of Management Education, 33(5), 526-552.

  • 27. Saunders, F. C. & Gale, A. W. (2012). Digital or didactic: Using learning technology to confront the challenge of large cohort teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 847-858.

  • 28. Schneider, L. S., & Renner, J. W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(6), 503-517.

  • 29. Shaw, K. (2001). Designing online learning opportunities, orchestrating experiences and managing learning. Teaching & learning online. Pedagogies for new technologies, 53-66.

  • 30. Stanley, C. A., & Porter, M. E. (2002). Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college faculty. Bolton, Massachusetts: Anker Publishing.

  • 31. Steif, P. S., & Dollár, A. (2009). Study of Usage Patterns and Learning Gains in a Web-based Interactive Static Course. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 321-333.

  • 32. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.

  • 33. Thomas, J. S., Hall, R. H., Philpot, T. A., & Carroll, D. R. (2011). The Effect of Online Videos on Learner Outcomes in a Mechanics of Materials Course. Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education, Vancouver, CA.

  • 34. U.S. Department of Education (2009). Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from

  • 35. Yoder, B. L. (2012). Engineering by the Numbers. Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education. San Antonio, TX.

  • 36. Zorn, J., & Kumler, M. (2003). Incorporating active learning in large lecture classes. The California Geographer, 43, 50-54.


Journal + Issues