Research Article

Teaching and Learning Experiences with Enhanced Books in Engineering Math and Science Courses

Tufan Adiguzel 1 * , Tayfun Kamit 2 , Bulent Ertas 1
More Detail
1 Bahcesehir University, Turkey2 Anadolu University, Turkey* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 11(2), April 2020, 143-158, https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660725
OPEN ACCESS   2654 Views   1316 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on understanding the implementation of three interactive digital products in the first-year foundational courses (General Chemistry, Physics I & II, Calculus I & II) at the Faculty of Engineering, and the perceptions of teaching and learning experiences with those products. The data were gathered from the instructors, students and Distance Education Unit Coordinator through in-depth interview of purposeful sample of the academics, student online survey and product platform usage data. The study reveals the nuances of the institutional change prompted by the initiatives for advancing teaching and learning through the integration of technology. The study findings are discussed through themes that address the benefits of integrating digital products as well as challenges experienced by the instructors, students, and by the institution during this period of transition to digital technologies. The findings assisted in identifying the related set of recommended actions for improving the implementation of digital products and strengthening their integration into academic programs.
Keywords: blended learning, e-books, engineering education, math, science

CITATION (APA)

Adiguzel, T., Kamit, T., & Ertas, B. (2020). Teaching and Learning Experiences with Enhanced Books in Engineering Math and Science Courses. Contemporary Educational Technology, 11(2), 143-158. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660725

REFERENCES

  1. Alonso, F., Manrique, D., Martinez, L., & Vines, J. M. (2011). How blended learning reduces underachievement in higher education: An experience in teaching computer sciences. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(3), 471-478. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2010.2083665
  2. Andersen, K., Geirsdottir, G., Thorsteinsson, S. E., Thorbergsson, H., & Gudmundsson, K. S. (2018). Engineering education case studies: Engaging students in blended learning. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 2018-July, 203-206. https://doi.org/10.1109/ProComm.2018.00047
  3. Benoit, A. M. (2018). Textbook affordability and student acceptance of etextbooks: An institutional case-study. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.2.3
  4. Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K.-J. (2004). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. Retrieved from www.pfeiffer.com
  5. Christie, M., & Jurado, R. G. (2009). Barriers to innovation in online pedagogy. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(3), 273-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790903038841
  6. Creswell, J. W., & Plano, L. C. V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  7. Demetriadis, S., & Pombortsis, A. (2007). e-lectures for flexible learning: A study on their learning efficiency. Educational Technology and Society, 10(2), 147-157.
  8. Derntl, M., & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.03.002
  9. Evenhouse, D., Patel, N., Gerschutz, M., Stites, N. A., Rhoads, J. F., Berger, E., & DeBoer, J. (2018). Perspectives on pedagogical change: Instructor and student experiences of a newly implemented undergraduate engineering dynamics curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(5), 664-678. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1397605
  10. Fischer, L., Hilton, J., Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. A. (2015). A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x
  11. Francis, R., & Shannon, S. J. (2013). Engaging with blended learning to improve students’ learning outcomes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(4), 359-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.766679
  12. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
  13. Graham, C. R. (2010). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
  14. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18(3), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
  15. Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Shin, E. K. (2017). Students’ expectation, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use digital textbooks. Computers in Human Behavior, 69(C), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.025
  16. Kashefi, H., Ismail, Z., & Yusof, Y. M. (2012). Supporting engineering students’ thinking and creative problem solving through blended learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56(2012), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.638
  17. López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers and Education, 56(3), 818-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023
  18. Martin, M. T., Belikov, O. M., Hilton III, J., Wiley, D., & Fischer, L. (2017). Analysis of student and faculty perceptions of textbook costs in higher education. Open Praxis, 9(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.1.432
  19. Martínez-Caro, E., & Campuzano-Bolarín, F. (2011). Factors affecting students’ satisfaction in engineering disciplines: Traditional vs. blended approaches. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(5), 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.619647
  20. Millar, M., & Schrier, T. (2015). Digital or printed textbooks: Which do students prefer and why? Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 15(2), 166-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2015.1026474
  21. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers and Education, 75, 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
  22. Reynolds, R. (2011). Trends influencing the growth of digital extbooks in US higher education. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 178-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-011-9216-5
  23. Strother, E. A., Brunet, D. P., Bates, M. L., & Gallo III, J. R. (2009). Dental students’ attitudes towards digital textbooks. Journal of Dental Education, 73(12), 1361-1365.
  24. U. S. Department of Education. (2019). Enrollment and employees in postsecondary institutions, fall 2017; and financial statistics and academic libraries, fiscal year 2017 first look (provisional data). 32. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019021REV.pdf
  25. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
  26. Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-011-9217-4
  27. Yigit, T., Koyun, A., Yuksel, A. S., & Cankaya, I. A. (2014). Evaluation of blended learning approach in computer engineering education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141(2014), 807-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.140
  28. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.