Content uploaded by Francisco Portillo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francisco Portillo on Nov 23, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Computer Applications in Engineering Education
RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS
The Impact of Flipped Learning and Digital Laboratory in
Basic Electronics Coursework
Francisco Portillo
1
| Manuel Soler‐Ortiz
1
| Cristina Sanchez‐Cruzado
2
| Rosa M. Garcia
1
| Nuria Novas
1
1
Department of Engineering, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain |
2
Department of Mathematics Education, Social Sciences and Experimental Sciences
Education, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain
Correspondence: Francisco Portillo (portillo@ual.es)
Received: 11 July 2024 | Revised: 3 October 2024 | Accepted: 7 November 2024
Keywords: digital laboratory | electronics coursework | flipped learning | university engineering learning | virtual simulation
ABSTRACT
Advancements in electronics and the rapid evolution of technology necessitate that higher education institutions continu-
ously adapt their curricula to accommodate new teaching methodologies and emergent tools. This paper examines the impact
of integrating flipped learning and digital laboratories into practical sessions of a Basic Electronics course by analyzing
5 years of data. Using an action research methodology, the research was conducted through three phases: traditional in‐
person teaching, fully online instruction during the COVID‐19 pandemic, and a hybrid model combining flipped classrooms,
digital laboratories, and in‐person sessions. The findings reveal that the hybrid model, blending digital and traditional
methods, significantly enhanced student performance, particularly in practical tasks. Furthermore, digital laboratories
provide students with a risk‐free environment to simulate real‐world electronic scenarios, fostering deeper cognitive en-
gagement and reducing the cognitive load during in‐person sessions. The flipped classroom structure encouraged active
learning and peer collaboration, which led to greater student motivation, lower absenteeism, and improved learning out-
comes. Additionally, students demonstrated a marked increase in their ability to apply theoretical knowledge to practical
problems, highlighting the effectiveness of this approach in bridging the gap between theory and practice. This model
enhances cognitive and motivational learning dimensions, providing a balanced, effective approach to modern engineering
education. The results can potentially contribute to the understanding of effective pedagogical strategies in adapting en-
gineering education to meet the challenges of the digital age.
1 | Introduction
Pursuing higher education in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) can be challenging since the rigorous
nature of these courses demands unwavering dedication and
consistent effort [1]. Given the fast pace of advancements in
STEM, it becomes imperative for professionals to adopt a mindset
of lifelong learning. However, with constraints like limited
classroom time and an expansive curriculum, traditional teach-
ing methods must be revised [2]. It is essential to consider active
teaching methodologies to address these challenges [3], espe-
cially in an era where hands‐on learning is pivotal [4].
Laboratory learning forms the bedrock of engineering educa-
tion, serving as an active learning catalyst, effectively bridging
the divide between theoretical knowledge and its practical ap-
plications [5, 6]. However, university practical work in labora-
tories often lacks the complexity encountered in the industry,
which can limit students' understanding of real‐world processes
[7]. Maximizing the students’interpretive understanding is
crucial before engaging in practical laboratory sessions [8].
These sessions play an integral role in electronic engineering,
where experimental measurements often involve uncontrolled
variables such as unknown component tolerances and the
effects of external noise [9].
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Author(s). Computer Applications in Engineering Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
1of15Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2024; 33:e22810
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22810
Students harness hands‐on experiments to develop essential
technical skills integral to engineering [10], but different dis-
ciplines collaborate [11]. For example, an electronic engineer
needs to understand not just mathematics and electrical physics
but also computer science to be able to program micro-
controllers and mechanical engineering to understand how
their designs will integrate into larger systems. This involves
accumulating knowledge in different disciplines and the ability
to integrate and apply this knowledge in complex contexts. This
ability cannot be developed simply by teaching separate disci-
plines. It requires a teaching and learning approach that com-
bines different fields, allowing students to apply it in the real
world [12].
However, scholarly evidence indicates that students often ex-
perience cognitive overload when integrating knowledge from
various disciplines, mainly when applied in hands‐on settings
like laboratories [13]. Cognitive overload occurs when the vol-
ume or complexity of information a person must deal with
exceeds their cognitive processing capacity [14]. In the context
of a laboratory, there are multiple elements that students need
to focus on simultaneously, such as handling unfamiliar
equipment, understanding materials, listening to and proces-
sing verbal instructions, and managing time effectively [15].
Cognitive load during practical sessions could cause students to
engage mechanically in the tasks without utterly understanding
or internalizing the information, preventing students from
being prepared [16].
To address this challenge, the flipped learning approach emerges
as a viable strategy [17]. This teaching method redefines the
conventional classroom setup, positioning students at the heart
of the learning process. In this model, students actively engage,
fostering heightened motivation, independence, and collabora-
tive interactions. Meanwhile, educators transition into facilita-
tors, molding the classroom into an immersive and interactive
educational environment [18]. Adopting a flipped learning model
incorporating online resources is a promising solution to alleviate
cognitive overload in laboratory settings, particularly in higher
education [19]. The core rationale behind pre‐laboratory prepa-
ration is to manage the new information students are exposed to
during the practical laboratory sessions [20]. By acquainting
themselves with key concepts, equipment, and procedures ahead
of time, students can reduce the strain on their working during
the in‐person session. This can facilitate more profound en-
gagement with the material and allow for more meaningful
analysis and understanding [21].
One of the factors that wreaked havoc on conventional educa-
tional systems was the COVID‐19 pandemic, compelling uni-
versities to transition to online learning platforms hastily [22].
The abrupt nature of this shift often resulted in the absence of
thorough planning [23], giving rise to an array of challenges.
Chief among these was the unequal access to devices and
internet connectivity [24], which was particularly detrimental
to underprivileged students. Additionally, deficiencies in digital
proficiency among educators and students [25], intricate strat-
egies for online assessments [26], and difficulties with time
management and the caliber of online education emerged as
significant concerns. To mitigate these shortcomings, it is
imperative to develop specialized online programs that
emphasize dynamic teaching methodologies and stimulate
student engagement [27]. In this regard, developing digital
laboratories became crucial in engineering education [28].
Using digital laboratories allows students to engage in a learn-
ing process that resembles real‐world experiences [29]. Inter-
active platforms within these digital environments allow virtual
instrumentation to be manipulated, which helps provide an
immersive learning experience. The development of simulators
with graphical interfaces was a significant advancement, but
digital laboratories further enhanced this by integrating more
features for hands‐on interaction. As a complement to hands‐on
practical laboratory sessions, digital laboratories serve as a cost‐
effective complement to traditional laboratories. Furthermore,
the customization and adaptability of digital laboratories cater
to the diverse needs of students. They can be tailored to address
various learning preferences and paces, which is often
impossible in a traditional laboratory setting due to issues
related to scheduling in higher education institutions [30].
Another significant advantage is the facilitation of acquiring
complex knowledge [31] and conceptual understanding [32].
Digital laboratories can be designed to focus on specific tasks,
allowing students to explore concepts in depth [9]. Experi-
menting in a risk‐free environment enables students to learn
from trial and error without fearing damaging expensive
equipment.
Among the diverse software available for digital laboratories,
Multisim is a popular tool used for simulating and analyzing
electronic circuits. By combining its simulation capabilities with
an interactive schematic environment, Multisim allows stu-
dents to design, visualize, and analyze circuits. Previous studies
have shown the benefits of integrating Multisim into educa-
tional courses [33]. These benefits include improving teaching
methodologies and emphasizing the importance of incorporat-
ing such tools into the academic process. The University of
Almeria is an example of an institution that has recognized
these benefits and has taken commendable steps to integrate
Multisim into its courses. By providing students access to
Multisim, our university ensures students gain experience with
circuit design, analysis, and simulation. This experience is
invaluable in electronics education, allowing students to apply
theoretical concepts in a practical setting.
Considering this theoretical framework, an initiative was pro-
posed to enhance the teaching and learning experience of the
Basic Electronics course's practical sessions. This proposal
involves integrating the flipped learning approach with a digital
laboratory. This study assesses whether this augmented model
offers benefits over traditional in‐person and online methods.
2 | Materials and Methods
We use a research methodology capable of initiating a trans-
formative change in education, where the researcher and
teacher roles are deeply intertwined. Action research is aptly
suited to this paradigm as it effectively studies, dissects, and
enhances educational practices. Action research consists of four
stages within each cycle: the first stage involves exploration and
observation; the second stage requires diagnosis and planning;
2of15 Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2024
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
the third stage is the action; and the fourth stage consists of the
evaluation of the outcomes of a classroom intervention to
facilitate changes [34].
This endeavor was initiated following an initial observation
stage where it was ascertained that engineering students
studying the Basic Electronics course with a traditional learning
environment in the practical sessions were facing a lack of
motivation, visible in high absenteeism (students who do not
take the course exam), an overwhelming amount of course
content and significant plagiarism between groups. A flipped
learning model with digital laboratory support was concep-
tualized and implemented during a second planning stage.
However, due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the learning‐
teaching process was conducted online. In a new cycle after the
pandemic, the flipped learning model with digital laboratory
support was complemented by the physical classes in the
laboratory.
2.1 | Population and Sample
The study was conducted over five sequential academic years in
the Basic Electronics course (see Table 1), which is mandatory
for UAL industrial engineering students. Given its relevance
and applicability across various engineering fields, the course is
included in four specializations: Industrial Electronics En-
gineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Chemical En-
gineering, and Mechanical Engineering.
The course carries 6 European Credit Transfer and Accumula-
tion System (ECTS) credits, equivalent to 150 study hours. It is
scheduled in the second semester, specifically from February to
May. The course is bifurcated into theoretical classes (theory)
and hands‐on exercises (practical sessions). The practical
component of the course encompasses a total of 60 h. Out of
these, 20 h are for in‐person laboratory work, while the balance
is allocated for independent study by the students. During the
practical sessions, students collaborate in pairs.
2.2 | Techniques for Collecting Information
Various techniques were employed to gather essential data for
this action research, focusing on the teaching‐learning process.
These included participant observation by the teacher‐
researchers and an external researcher, assessment and grading
of the participating students, analysis of documents such as the
teacher's diary, evaluations of individual and group activities,
and submitted task assignments.
2.3 | Action Research Cycles
Figure 1illustrates the three cycles conducted in this study,
which will be detailed below.
2.3.1 | First Action Research Cycle
The observation phase was conducted at the end of the
2018–2019 academic year. That year, the course emphasized a
hands‐on approach in the laboratory sessions where students
engaged in assembling circuits. This method provided experi-
ential learning as students participated in building and ana-
lyzing circuits. They gathered data, conducted measurements,
and compiled reports that included the specifics of circuit
assembly, measurements, and data analysis. Additionally, sim-
ulators were employed as auxiliary tools for the students to
confirm their results.
Upon observing the group, we noticed a decline in academic
achievements, a lack of motivation, and increased absenteeism.
There was an evident deficiency in classroom time dedicated to
hands‐on tasks, and students grappled with adjusting to varying
learning speeds. Furthermore, the required reports were
lengthy because they integrated theoretical and practical in-
sights, making the compilation time‐consuming. As a result,
notable instances of plagiarism arose among groups.
A flipped learning model was thus planned, designed (second
stage), and implemented (third stage) in the 2019–2020
academic year under the hypothesis that this model, com-
bined with a digital laboratory, could significantly improve the
noted concerns [35]. A distinctive aspect of this first action
research cycle was that students had previously yet to use the
flipped learning model and had solely utilized the educational
platform for assignment submission.
TABLE 1 | Number of students enrolled in the basic electronics
course.
Academic
year
Total
students
Men
(%)
Women
(%)
2018–19 186 89.2 10.8
2019–20 138 89.1 10.9
2020–21 192 83.3 16.7
2021–22 163 81.0 19.0
2022–23 164 82.3 17.7 FIGURE 1 | Diagram of the action research study conducted in this
article.
3of15
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The new educational proposal brought a watershed change by
introducing Multisim as the main instrument for practical
sessions (Figure 2). The Blackboard e‐learning platform bol-
stered the incorporation of Multisim. In this online realm,
students could delve into learning modules encapsulating the
crux of fundamental concepts. Concurrently, a suite of pre‐
laboratory online resources was made available, encompassing
instructional videos, safety procedures, reading materials, digi-
tal laboratory simulations, and discussion forums.
This implementation coincided with the COVID‐19 pandemic,
which shut down physical laboratories. Two in‐person sessions
occurred before the course transitioned entirely to an online for-
mat. At that moment, instructors were required to develop a
continuity plan for the practical sessions promptly [36], and the
digital‐centric nature of the course emerged as a well‐suited
solution for this challenge [37]; students analyzed circuits in the
digital laboratory to meet the design parameters and subsequently
uploaded screenshots via Blackboard as proof of their efforts.
Converting a traditional classroom course into an online format
is a large and complex process [38] that demands substantial
effort from the instructor and a good understanding of the
available tools [39]. Moreover, encouraging intrinsic motivation
in students for daily classroom participation remains a persist-
ent challenge [40]. Hence, at the onset of the 2019–2020
academic year, all teachers involved in the Basic Electronics
course started to delve into digital laboratories. Furthermore,
the difficulties posed by the COVID‐19 pandemic presented a
unique opportunity for pedagogical research [41], particularly
regarding the transition toward online experimental learning.
Since then, these online resources have been integral to
the students’preparatory process for the practical sessions. The
access and utilization of these resources were woven into the
curriculum as a standard prerequisite for all students enrolled
in this course.
Initially, students were given a learning module document
containing a summary of the most important concepts related to
the practical work (Figure 3). These reading materials supply
essential background knowledge of the fundamental concepts
pertinent to laboratory experiments [42].
Following the revision of the learning module, students were
offered a self‐assessment test for each learning module to
strengthen their knowledge and assess their comprehension
(Figure 4). Students were urged to complete these tests, com-
posed of multiple‐choice questions, and were allowed to take
them multiple times until they succeeded. These tools enable
students to evaluate their grasp of the subject [43]. The test
functioned as a tool for self‐assessment, assisting students in
pinpointing the areas that necessitated more concentration or
additional revision. Additionally, it allowed students to gauge
their understanding and receive immediate feedback. The self‐
assessment tests leveraged the features and capabilities of
Blackboard, allowing students to complete the tests online and
obtain direct feedback on their performance.
After completing the self‐assessment test, the digital laboratory
was introduced. At that moment, the circuit to be analyzed was
made visible to students (Figure 5), allowing them to access and
interact virtually. The digital laboratory enables students to
undertake experiments in a tranquil, simulated environment,
free from the limitations of a physical laboratory.
Alongside the circuit, the 'design parameters' were provided as
guidelines or specifications the circuit needed to satisfy
(Figure 6). These parameters defined specific characteristics or
performance criteria the circuit had to achieve, such as particular
voltage levels, current values, or frequency responses. Utilizing
the knowledge acquired through the learning module and the
self‐assessment tests, students were expected to apply their un-
derstanding of basic electronics principles and concepts to ana-
lyze and manipulate the circuit in the digital laboratory. During
this process, students explored different configurations, compo-
nent values, and circuit modifications to ensure compliance with
the design parameters. The task has been executed correctly if
the circuit adheres to the design parameters (which can be easily
FIGURE 2 | Illustration of a circuit designed using Multisim.
4of15 Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2024
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
verified in Multisim). Upon completion, students submitted
screenshots through Blackboard as evidence of their work.
To better illustrate the practical application of this approach, let
us consider the module on “operational amplifiers”(OA).
Traditionally, this topic was taught through lectures followed by
in‐person laboratory sessions, where students physically as-
sembled circuits involving three OAs and performed measure-
ments. However, the flipped classroom and digital laboratory
approach significantly transformed the learning experience
FIGURE 3 | Example of learning module.
FIGURE 4 | Example of question in the self‐assessment test.
5of15
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
under the blended model. In the flipped classroom setting,
students were assigned reading materials on the fundamentals
of OAs, covering key concepts such as voltage gain, feedback,
and the different configurations (inverting, non‐inverting).
Students completed a self‐assessment quiz to reinforce their
understanding, ensuring they had grasped the theoretical con-
tent. Before attending the in‐person laboratory, students used
Multisim to design and test their OA circuits virtually
FIGURE 5 | Instructions of the circuit to be analyzed in the digital laboratory.
FIGURE 6 | Unique parameters for each group.
6of15 Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2024
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
(Figure 2), manipulating circuit parameters and instantly vi-
sualizing results, such as voltage output and gain, providing
immediate feedback on the concepts learned. When students
attended the physical laboratory session, they applied what they
had learned in the digital laboratory. By this stage, students had
a clearer understanding of the expected outcomes of an OA
circuit and were more confident in assembling and testing the
circuits. They could focus on fine‐tuning the physical compo-
nents, identifying discrepancies between the theoretical gain
and actual performance, and troubleshooting real‐world chal-
lenges such as noise in an OA chain.
Another challenge is establishing a fair and transparent online
system that effectively reduces the risks of cheating and pla-
giarism [44]. The use of Blackboard provides the flexibility to
customize the design parameters and circuits for each group of
students. This customization ensures that each group works
with unique circuits with different parameters. This individu-
alization makes it impossible for students to copy or replicate
work between groups. This encourages students to focus on
understanding the underlying concepts and applying their
knowledge to their group's specific circuit and design parame-
ters. It fosters independent thinking, problem‐solving, and
originality in approaching the assigned tasks.
Because of the persisting pandemic, the methodology was ex-
tended entirely online into the 2020–2021 academic year, and the
educational proposal was implemented again that academic year
with no substantial changes.
Various evidence was gathered upon the completion and
meticulous reflection and evaluation of this initiative for the
2019–2020 and 2020–2021 academic years (the fourth stage of
action research). While digital laboratories have shown to be
effective in aiding professional skills development, they cannot
replace traditional laboratories since they provide an authentic
yet controlled environment that enhances critical‐thinking
skills by exposing students to real‐world challenges. Student
engineers must understand why practical measurements differ
from theoretical predictions as they navigate these realistic
scenarios. Their aptitude for identifying systematic or proce-
dural errors in the laboratory is equally vital. Moreover, in‐
person laboratory experiments can stimulate scientific inquiry
and innovation, as hands‐on engagement often ignites students’
curiosity. This culture of inquiry drives advancements in en-
gineering, making physical laboratories an essential part of
safety protocols and standard practices training, thus preparing
students for professional environments.
A new research cycle is proposed to verify this and align with
the end of the pandemic and distancing measures. This will
leverage all the online materials created and combine them
with in‐person sessions in the laboratory.
2.3.2 | Second Action Research Cycle
The second action research cycle was conducted in the
2021–academic year. In the design and implementation stage,
the flipped learning model was also performed with the pre‐
existing online resources to equip students for the in‐person
practical laboratory sessions. In addition, students were pro-
vided with instructional videos (Figure 7) that contextualized
the laboratory equipment and safety instructions. These visual
aids demonstrate apparatus and methodologies, offering stu-
dents a clear picture of the tasks ahead. They were developed to
provide graphic and auditory explanations to reinforce the
knowledge of the laboratory equipment [45] and have been
observed to influence students’laboratory grades positively [16].
The design and execution of this framework were orchestrated
in a way that aimed to yield a positive impact on the student's
learning experience in the physical laboratory. Consequently,
they enter the in‐person laboratory sessions with a foundational
knowledge of the laboratory instrumentation that empowers
them to build on what they already know rather than grappling
with a deluge of information in one go. Online preparatory
resources aim to optimize and manage students' cognitive load
by acquainting them with essential laboratory knowledge, the-
ories, concepts, and protocols before in‐person practical ses-
sions. The flipped learning model's underlying hypothesis is
that students' time preparing for their in‐person laboratory class
would liberate cognitive resources and curtail the influx of the
latest information they need to process simultaneously [20].
In the digital laboratory, students were presented with a circuit
that needed to be designed, simulated, and analyzed, along with
the design specifications that the circuit had to fulfill. Students
scrutinized the circuit within the digital laboratory in the pre-
vious stage and subsequently built it in the physical laboratory,
drawing comparisons between the two. Since students had
already conducted the circuit analysis in the digital laboratory,
they had a clearer understanding of the expected results. They
knew in advance what measurements they should obtain dur-
ing the physical measures. This clarification helped to alleviate
uncertainties and increased students’confidence in the cor-
rectness of their circuit assembly.
FIGURE 7 | Example of the Instructional videos. (a) description of the different protoboards, (b) use of the oscilloscope.
7of15
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Each group was required to submit some photos of the oscilloscope
through Blackboard, demonstrating that their circuit met the pro-
posed specifications. This submission proved that the group had
successfully designed and configured their circuit to fulfill the
specified parameters. A visual representation of the circuit and its
compliance with the given specifications allowed for a convenient
and efficient assessment of the group's work, simplifying the grad-
ing process. The submission provided a snapshot of the circuit
diagram or simulation results, showcasing key aspects such as
voltage levels, current flows, or frequency responses that demon-
strated the circuit's adherence to the proposed specifications (design
parameters). By adopting this method, Blackboard functioned as a
central repository for students to submit and share their work with
instructors. It streamlined the assessment process by eliminating the
need for physical reports. This shift to screenshot submissions en-
abled instructors to review and evaluate each group's work effi-
ciently. It allowed for clear visualization of the circuit's
performance, making it easier to assess the student's understanding
and apply the concepts covered in the practical sessions.
Once the proposal with the hybrid model combining flipped
learning, digital laboratory, and in‐person sessions was com-
pleted, the evaluation and reflection of the results obtained in
this last action research cycle were analyzed. After the first year
after the COVID pandemic ended, students reached the uni-
versities feeling the gap of 2 years without hands‐on lessons.
Lockdown had kept them away from in‐person classes in all
subjects. As the academic year ended, teachers adjusted the
contents of the course, starting a new research cycle.
2.3.3 | Third Action Research Cycle
The third action research cycle was conducted in the 2022–2023
academic year. The course contents were adjusted, with en-
hancements to the learning modules and digital simulations
tailored to the prior years’experience. As a result, students had
more in‐class time to share experiences and insights with their
peers. The improvements were evaluated by looking at the
learning outcomes, the teacher's diary, and the observation by
an external researcher, among other factors.
Additionally, selected student comments from the final course
survey for the 2022–2023 academic year were incorporated.
While the survey did not explicitly target the learning meth-
odology, several responses reflect students’experiences with the
flipped classroom and digital laboratory approach, offering
relevant and insightful feedback. Notable comments include:
•‘The practical sessions are very well aligned with the course
syllabus and successfully complement the understanding of
the subject content’.
•‘The explanation of the practical sessions is delivered with
great clarity, and there is always time to address any
questions that arise’.
•‘In the practical sessions, the instructor does not pay much
attention to the students’.
•‘The instructor always motivates students to learn more
about the subject. With the additional content available on
Blackboard, more material is offered beyond the core
curriculum’.
•‘I didn't like the subject at all initially, but through the
practical sessions, I managed to understand it and, in the
end, even started to enjoy it. The practical sessions were
more instructive than some theoretical exercises done in
class’.
An analysis is presented in detail in the results section of this
document and could provide the basis for a new action research
cycle for a future academic year.
3 | Analysis and Results
The study's findings are presented separately at three distinct
moments: the starting point, called Point 0 (P0), following the
initial observation; the outcomes from Cycle 1 (C1), analyzed
after the first cycle of action research; the outcomes from Cycle
2 (C2), post the second cycle and the results from Cycle 3 (C3)
after its completion (Figure 1).
The variables examined relate to the cognitive, motivational,
and social facets, as noted by Santiago and Bergmann [35].
These variables, stemming from the action research across
various cycles, are in Tables 2,3, and 4.
Delving deeper into the cognitive dimension, practical and
theoretical components perform better under the enhanced
hybrid teaching methodology. The traditional approach (P0)
witnessed moderate academic performance, with high absen-
teeism and plagiarism rate. This highlights potential issues with
engagement or comprehension under the traditional format.
Moving to C1, there was a noticeable uptick in academic per-
formance for practical sessions despite the challenges presented
by the global pandemic. Pass rates increased, and concurrently,
the absenteeism rate decreased to 26% by the end of the cycle.
These improvements culminated in a significant success rate of
76.1%. However, for the overall course, the picture is mixed. The
success rate for the 2019–2020 academic year remained at a
moderate 60.3%. Still, by the 2020–2021 academic year, it had
risen sharply to 91.7%. This success rate contrasts with a sur-
prising absenteeism rate of 68.8% in the same year, suggesting
that while students might score higher, a portion needed to be
actively engaged.
C2 again showed a shift. Practical sessions improved continued,
with 55.8% of students passing. Absenteeism was slightly better
than in C1. However, the overall course results could have been
better. The pass rate was only 28.8%, and the success rate
dropped. This indicates that the hybrid method might have
been effective for practical components but less so for other
aspects of the course.
Lastly, the enhanced hybrid method (C3) produced the most
promising results. For practical sessions, the pass rate rose to
68.9%, the highest across all years. The absenteeism rate was the
lowest, and the success rate reached a peak of 86.3%. These
figures suggest elevated levels of student engagement and
8of15 Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2024
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TABLE 2 | Variables in the cognitive dimension.
P0 (Traditional) C1 (Virtual) C2 (Hybrid) C3 (Enhanced hybrid)
Academic year 2018–2019 2019–2020/2020–2021 2021–2022 2022–2023
Academic performance
(practical sessions)
Pass: 36.6%
Fail: 23.1%
Absenteeism: 40.3%
Success rate: 61.3%
Pass: 46.6%/56.3%
Fail: 20.3%/17.7%
Absenteeism: 33.3%/26.0%
Success rate: 69.6%/76.1%
Pass: 55.8%
Fail: 16.6%
Absenteeism: 27.6%
Success rate: 77.1%
Pass: 68.9%
Fail: 11.0%
Absenteeism: 20.1%
Success rate: 86.3%
Academic performance
(overall course)
Pass: 32.8%
Fail: 18.8%
Absenteeism: 48.4%
Success rate: 63.5%
Pass: 34.1%/28.6%
Fail: 22.5%/2.6%
Absenteeism: 43.5%/68.8%
Success rate: 60.3%/91.7%
Pass: 28.8%
Fail: 25.2%
Absenteeism: 46.0%
Success rate: 53.4%
Pass: 47.6%
Fail: 25.6%
Absenteeism: 26.8%
Success rate: 65.0%
Grades A+ (10): 0.0%
A(9–9.99): 0.0%
B(7–8.99): 1.6%
C(5–6.99): 34.9%
F(0–4.99): 23.1%
Absent: 40.3%
A+ (10): 1.4%/0.0%
A(9–9.99): 6.5%/5.2%
B(7–8.99): 21.0%/34.4%
C(5–6.99): 17.4%/16.7%
F(0–4.99): 20.3%/17.7%
Absent: 33.3%/26.0%
A+ (10): 3.1%
A(9–9.99): 10.4%
B(7–8.99): 27.0%
C(5–6.99): 15.3%
F(0–4.99): 16.6%
Absent: 27.6%
A+ (10): 6.1%
A(9–9.99): 11.6%
B(7–8.99): 31.7%
C(5–6.99): 19.5%
F(0
–4.99): 11.0%
Absent: 20.1%
Assessment type 33% Reports;
66% Exam on circuit assembly.
33% Screenshots of the
digital laboratory;
66% Online test.
50% Photos of the oscilloscope and
screenshots of the digital laboratory;
50% Exam on laboratory
instrumentation.
50% Photos of the oscilloscope and
screenshots of the digital laboratory;
50% Exam on laboratory
instrumentation;
10% Extra credits for voluntary
activities.
Classroom‐based
activities
Circuit assembly. Not applicable. Circuit assembly;
Problem solving.
Circuit assembly;
Experience sharing;
Problem‐solving;
Voluntary activities.
Activities outside the
classroom
Time‐consuming reports, with
notable instances of plagiarism
among the groups.
Self‐assessment tests;
Reading materials;
Digital laboratory
simulations;
Discussion forums.
Self‐assessment tests;
Reading materials;
Digital laboratory simulations;
Safety procedures.
Self‐assessment tests;
Enhanced reading materials;
Enhanced digital laboratory
simulations.
Safety procedures.
Viewing videos No. No. Practical videos about
instrumentation.
Practical videos about
instrumentation.
Access to content Textbooks. Learning modules. Learning modules. Enhanced learning modules.
(Continues)
9of15
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TABLE 2 | (Continued)
P0 (Traditional) C1 (Virtual) C2 (Hybrid) C3 (Enhanced hybrid)
Addressing diversity Not adapted. The same activities for
all students.
Online activities adapted to
different learning paces.
Online activities adapted to diverse
learning paces.
Online activities adapted to diverse
learning paces.
Answering questions The teacher answers questions on
the board.
The teacher typically
answers questions online;
Peers answer questions
through a chatroom.
The teacher typically answers
questions online and in the
classroom;
Peers answer questions in the
classroom.
The teacher typically answers
questions online and in the
classroom;
Peers answer questions in the
classroom.
TABLE 3 | Variables in the motivational dimension.
P0 (Traditional) C1 (Virtual) C2 (Hybrid) C3 (Enhanced hybrid)
Academic year 2018–2019 2019–2020/2020–2021 2021–2022 2022–2023
Participation Ten traditional practical
sessions;
Passive students.
Ten online sessions;
Passive students.
Ten in‐person sessions; Active students. Ten practical sessions;
Active students;
Motivated students to participate in extra
activities.
Activity design Textbook based. Based primarily on digital
laboratory
Based primarily on digital laboratory,
reinforced with physical assembly.
Based primarily on digital laboratory,
reinforced with physical assembly;
Experience sharing.
Mood Passive students;
Bored in the classroom;
High absenteeism rate.
Passive students;
Low participation.
Engaged students;
High participation.
Engaged students;
High involvement and interaction.
10 of 15 Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2024
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TABLE 4 | Variables in the social dimension.
P0 (Traditional) C1 (Virtual) C2 (Hybrid) C3 (Enhanced hybrid)
Academic year 2018–2019 2019–2020/2020–2021 2021–2022 2022–2023
Working system Work in pairs Individual work. Individual self‐assessment test in the first
block;
For the rest, work in pairs.
Individual self‐assessment test in the first
block;
For the rest, work in pairs.
Virtual relationships Not applicable. Discussion forums;
Blackboard messages;
Email.
Video conference room.
Blackboard messages;
Email.
Blackboard messages;
Email.
Personal
relationships
Pair interaction during the
classroom.
Not applicable. Pair interaction during the classroom. Strong pair interaction.
Group interaction during the classroom.
Motivational dimension
Participation Ten traditional practical
sessions;
Passive students.
Ten online sessions;
Passive students.
Ten in‐person sessions; Active students. Ten practical sessions;
Active students;
Motivated students to participate in extra
activities.
Activity design Textbook based. Based primarily on digital
laboratory
Based primarily on digital laboratory,
reinforced with physical assembly.
Based primarily on digital laboratory,
reinforced with physical assembly;
Experience sharing.
Mood Passive students;
Bored in the classroom;
High absenteeism rate.
Passive students;
Low participation.
Engaged students;
High participation.
Engaged students;
High involvement and interaction.
11 of 15
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
comprehension. For the overall course, 47.6% of students pas-
sed, indicating that the added enhancements in this model
positively impacted student performance.
There has been an improvement in the student's grades, with
the last cycle recording the highest percentage of students
achieving an A (Excellent and Very Good) at 17.7%. The extra
credits for voluntary activities have led to the highest level of
outstanding students.
Regarding classroom activities, P0 started with traditional cir-
cuit assembly. C1 proceeded with the flipped learning approach,
supported by a digital laboratory. However, the pandemic made
the entire model entirely online. C2 continued with flipped
learning, virtual laboratory, and in‐person practical classes. C3
sustained this model, enhancing the activities and ensuring
students shared their classroom experiences. Many even
became engaged in voluntary activities.
Outside the classroom, during C1, there were self‐assessment
tests, reading materials, digital laboratory simulations, and
discussion forums because all the classes were conducted online
due to the pandemic. With the end of the pandemic (C2 and
C3), the discussion forums were removed, and safety proce-
dures and videos on laboratory instrumentation were added,
assisting students in familiarizing themselves with the equip-
ment before attending class.
Regarding the analysis of the results related to the social
dimension, it is evident that laboratories foster collaborative
work, encouraging teamwork and cooperative learning skills
that engineers commonly exercise in professional settings. C3
successfully promotes a collaborative environment. The format
facilitates meaningful dialog and student cooperation, including
group discussions and peer feedback sessions. Flipped learning
facilitates a satisfactory level of peer interaction, promoting a
collaborative learning environment. Finally, about the motiva-
tional aspect, in the observation process of the teaching staff as
reflected in their diaries, evidence can be found that in C2 and
even so more in C3, students were dynamically participative,
leading to a fall in absenteeism, the lowest ever recorded
at 20.1%.
Regarding the motivational dimension and acknowledging the
challenges in measuring this aspect, C3 saw surprising volun-
tary participation from many groups, which represents a high
motivation of the students. Most students participated in all the
activities. This response implies an elevated level of engagement
and involvement during in‐person class time in the flipped
learning model. A noteworthy element in C3 was students’
willingness to share experiences, often leading to peer‐teaching
or mentoring moments. These instances allowed them to
articulate lessons learned from peers or moments where they
assisted a classmate in grasping a concept. The dynamic com-
ponents of flipped learning, encompassing group dialogs,
problem‐solving endeavors, and tangible projects, adeptly foster
student engagement. Students‘responses denote an elevated
level of commitment and involvement during in‐person class
time using the flipped classroom approach, which is a primary
goal of this teaching model. While most students appreciated
the classroom's collaborative nature, some preferred more
traditional teaching methods, noting a desire for additional
support and feedback from the instructor.
4 | Discussion of the Results
One aspect that raises a few questions is that the absenteeism
rate has been falling with the methodology change. This sug-
gests that face‐to‐face learning is less prone to absenteeism due
to socializing with classmates and teachers [46]. However,
absenteeism can be attributed to several factors, such as online
methodology. Pedagogical reasons include limited interactivity
and difficulties converting a traditional to an online model.
Technological challenges, such as unreliable connections and
the need for better electronic devices, also contribute to
absenteeism. Additionally, social factors like the lack of human
interaction between students and teachers and between peers,
inadequate physical learning spaces at home, and limited
parental support due to the pandemic lead to potential student
dropout rates and decreased student motivation.
One of the notable social aspects highlighted among the stu-
dents in C2 is their limited familiarity with each other. These
students entered the university without the opportunity to
socialize and meet their peers in person, as the previous year
was entirely virtual. Consequently, these students face more
significant challenges regarding teamwork skills [47]. This was
no longer the case in C3, as the previous year was taught face‐
to‐face. The results demonstrate that students value the
opportunity for social interaction and find it beneficial for en-
hancing their teamwork abilities compared to virtual courses.
Studies corroborate that in‐person activities improve and
streamline group work [48].
A closer look at the pass and failure rates presents another
comparison facet. The pass rate in practical sessions has con-
sistently improved over the years. It has been enhanced with the
incorporation of the digital laboratory. Moreover, failure and
absenteeism rates have improved following the implementation
of the digital laboratory. These findings suggest that digital lab-
oratories have been well‐received and demanded by students,
who also recognize the importance of physical laboratories in
face‐to‐face teaching [49]. This is further supported by C3, where
the absenteeism rate has been the lowest, 20.1%. The pass rate
has also been higher, at 68.9%. Over time, students and faculty
have become more accustomed to the hybrid learning model,
leading to more effective teaching and learning strategies.
The flipped learning model supports cognitive, social, and moti-
vational learning dimensions [35]. From a cognitive standpoint, it
accentuateselementssuchasimproved critical thinking, en-
hanced interactions with teachers, readily available learning tools,
adapting resources to fit different learning styles, and diverse
evaluation methods. Socially, it promotes teamwork and interac-
tions among peers. From a motivational aspect, it allows students
to set their own pace, make independent learning decisions, align
with their strengths and interests, delve into hands‐on learning
experiences, and foster a stronger bond with educators.
Employing the flipped learning model results in students being
more engaged than traditional approaches. Moreover, various
12 of 15 Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2024
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
studies indicate that technological tools bring learning flexibil-
ity and efficiency and elevate classroom task motivation and
performance [50]. In this regard, several academic investiga-
tions have substantiated the potential advantages of virtual
laboratories in education [51, 52]. While simulators enable
students to evaluate the behavior of electronic circuits, digital
laboratories offer additional benefits by incorporating virtual
measurement instruments that emulate the ones the students
will utilize in the practical laboratory sessions. This arrange-
ment allows students to engage with the instruments more
freely and experiment without the fear of damaging them, thus
facilitating more efficient learning of their functionalities.
The approach used by students in practical sessions has un-
dergone a notable change. In P0, students were required to
collect data in the laboratory through various measurements
and prepare a lengthy report. A common challenge faced by
students was that they needed to grasp all the concepts fully
during the in‐person laboratory session. In C2 and C3, students
arrive at the laboratory and have already conducted the circuit
analysis in the virtual laboratory. This reduces students’
uncertainty regarding the correct assembly of their circuits. The
digital laboratory experience gives them a better understanding
of the circuit behavior, allowing them to anticipate the out-
comes before the physical measurements occur in the physical
laboratory.
5 | Conclusions
This study highlights how adapting higher education to incor-
porate flipped learning and digital laboratories can positively
impact practical sessions in Basic Electronics. The hybrid model
emphasizes hands‐on activities, which lead to deeper circuit
analysis, enhanced creativity, and improved problem‐solving
skills. Mastery of these competencies contributes to better
academic outcomes.
While digital laboratories have been shown to be effective in
aiding professional skills development, they cannot replace
traditional laboratories and work better as supportive tools. The
introduction of digital laboratories led to improved pass rates
among students, but this did not consistently correlate with
better performance in theoretical aspects. Moreover, years that
relied heavily on online teaching showed higher absenteeism
rates due to various technological, pedagogical, and social
challenges.
Interestingly, implementing flipped learning supported with
digital laboratories led to higher pass rates and improved grades
overall, underscoring the potential of digital tools to enhance
student performance. The most promising results were
observed in the last academic years when an enhanced hybrid
model combining flipped learning, digital laboratory, and in‐
person practical sessions was used. This suggests that a bal-
anced approach is vital, capitalizing on the strengths of both
digital and traditional teaching methodologies. This is so,
especially in engineering education, which requires hands‐on
skills. This balanced approach prepares students more effec-
tively for the dynamic requirements of the professional world.
The study advocates for continued analysis of teaching
methodologies in the future to help fine‐tune the integration of
digital and traditional teaching methodologies in engineering
education for optimal outcomes.
Acknowledgments
This paper is supported by the Teaching Innovation Projects titled
‘Relevant Methodology for Comprehensive Learning of Digital Elec-
tronics at a Commercial Level’and ‘Interactive Teaching of Digital
Processing Systems and Sensing Techniques’, granted by the University
of Almeria (Spain).
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request
from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due
to privacy or ethical restrictions.
References
1. M. J. Graham, J. Frederick, A. Byars‐Winston, A.‐B. Hunter, and
J. Handelsman, “Increasing Persistence of College Students in STEM,”
Science 341, no. 6153 (2013): 1455–1456.
2. M. M. Waldrop, “Why We Are Teaching Science Wrong, and How to
Make It Right,”Nature 523, no. 7560 (2015): 272–274.
3. L. M. Guimarães and R. da Silva Lima, “Structural Modeling and
Measuring Impact of Active Learning Methods in Engineering Educa-
tion,”IEEE Transactions on Education 66, no. 6 (2023): 543–552.
4. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, et al., “Active Learning
Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathe-
matics,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 23
(2014): 8410–8415.
5. L. D. Feisel and A. J. Rosa, “The Role of the Laboratory in Under-
graduate Engineering Education,”Journal of Engineering Education 94,
no. 1 (2005): 121–130.
6. N. Abekiri, M. Ajaamoum, A. Rachdy, B. Nassiri, and M. Benydir,
“Towards Hybrid Technical Learning: Transforming Traditional Labo-
ratories for Distance Learning,”Computer Applications in Engineering
Education 32, no. 5 (2024): e22771, https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22771.
7. P. Patani, S. Tiwari, and S. S. Rathore, “The Impact of GitHub on
Students' Learning and Engagement in a Software Engineering Course,”
Computer Applications in Engineering Education 32, no. 5 (2024):
e22775, https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22775.
8. J. Bernhard and A. K. Carstensen (2017) “Real”Experiments or
Computers in Labs ‐Opposites or Synergies? Experiences From a
Course in Electric Circuit Theory. Proceedings of the 45th SEFI Annual
Conference 2017 ‐Education Excellence for Sustainability, SEFI 2017.
9. P. Coleman and A. Hosein, “Using Voluntary Laboratory Simulations
as Preparatory Tasks to Improve Conceptual Knowledge and Engage-
ment,”European Journal of Engineering Education 48, no. 5 (2022):
899–912, https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2160969.
10. P. Singh and L. K. Singh, “An Effective Approach to Teach Instru-
mentation and Control Systems for Engineering Students,”IEEE
Transactions on Education 66, no. 6 (2023): 563–571.
11. D. Jonassen, J. Strobel, and C. B. Lee, “Everyday Problem Solving in
Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators,”Journal of
Engineering Education 95, no. 2 (2006): 139–151.
12. A. García‐Yeguas, D. Arias, F. González‐García, and
D. Aguilera Morales, “Análisis Del Impacto De Un Programa Formativo
Stem En Los Modelos Mentales Y La Actitud De Docentes En For-
mación,”Espiral Cuadernos Del Profesorado 16, no. 32 (2023): 39–50.
13. S. M. Jones and A. Edwards, “Online Pre‐Laboratory Exercises En-
hance Student Preparedness for First Year Biology Practical Classes,”
13 of 15
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics
Education 18, no. 2 (2010): 1–14, https://openjournals.library.sydney.
edu.au/CAL/article/view/4641.
14. J. Leppink, F. Paas, C. P. M. Van der Vleuten, T. Van Gog, and
J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, “Development of an Instrument for Measuring
Different Types of Cognitive Load,”Behavior Research Methods 45, no. 4
(2013): 1058–1072.
15. N. Reid and I. Shah, “The Role of Laboratory Work in University
Chemistry,”Chemistry Education Research and Practice 8, no. 2 (2007):
172–185.
16. T. L. Rodgers, N. Cheema, S. Vasanth, A. Jamshed, A. Alfutimie,
and P. J. Scully, “Developing Pre‐Laboratory Videos for Enhancing
Student Preparedness,”European Journal of Engineering Education 45,
no. 2 (2020): 292–304.
17. M. C. Ruiz‐Jiménez, R. Martínez‐Jiménez, and A. Licerán‐Gutiérrez,
“Students' Perceptions of Their Learning Outcomes in a Flipped
Classroom Environment,”Educational Technology Research and
Development 72 (2024): 1205–1223, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-
10289-y.
18. G. J. Hwang, S. C. Chang, Y. Song, and M. C. Hsieh, “Powering Up
Flipped Learning: An Online Learning Environment With a Concept
Map‐Guided Problem‐Posing Strategy,”Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning 37, no. 2 (2021): 429–445.
19. M. D. González‐Zamar and E. Abad‐Segura, “El Aula Invertida: Un
Desafío Para La Enseñanza Universitaria,”Virtualidad, Educación
y Ciencia 11, no. 20 (2020): 75–91.
20. L. Abeysekera and P. Dawson, “Motivation and Cognitive Load in
the Flipped Classroom: Definition, Rationale and a Call for Research,”
Higher Education Research & Development 34, no. 1 (2015): 1–14.
21. A. Pardo, D. Gasevic, J. Jovanovic, S. Dawson, and N. Mirriahi,
“Exploring Student Interactions With Preparation Activities in a Flip-
ped Classroom Experience,”IEEE Transactions on Learning
Technologies 12, no. 3 (2019): 333–346.
22. T. Jin, “Online Interactive Face‐To‐Face Learning in Mathematics in
Engineering Education,”European Journal of Engineering Education 48,
no. 2 (2023): 300–320.
23. J. Singh, K. Steele, and L. Singh, “Combining the Best of Online and
Face‐To‐Face Learning: Hybrid and Blended Learning Approach for
COVID‐19, Post Vaccine, & Post‐Pandemic World,”Journal of
Educational Technology Systems 50, no. 2 (2021): 140–171.
24. S. Faraj, W. Renno, and A. Bhardwaj, “Unto the Breach: What the
COVID‐19 Pandemic Exposes About Digitalization,”Information and
Organization 31, no. 1 (2021): 100337.
25. C. Sánchez‐Cruzado, R. Santiago Campión, and T. Sánchez‐
Compaña, “Teacher Digital Literacy: The Indisputable Challenge After
COVID‐19,”Sustainability 13, no. 4 (2021): 1858.
26. S. Dendir and R. S. Maxwell, “Cheating in Online Courses: Evidence
From Online Proctoring,”Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2
(2020): 100033.
27. Y. M. Tang, P. C. Chen, K. M. Y. Law, et al., “Comparative Analysis
of Student's Live Online Learning Readiness During the Coronavirus
(COVID‐19) Pandemic in the Higher Education Sector,”Computers &
Education 168 (2021): 104211.
28. D. May, B. Morkos, A. Jackson, N. J. Hunsu, A. Ingalls, and
F. Beyette, “Rapid Transition of Traditionally Hands‐On Labs to Online
Instruction in Engineering Courses,”European Journal of Engineering
Education 48, no. 5 (2022): 842–860, https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.
2022.2046707.
29. L. A. Freeman and N. Taylor, “Invited Paper: The Changing Land-
scape of IS Education: An Introduction to the Special Issue,”Journal of
Information Systems Education 30, no. 4 (2019): 212–216, https://aisel.
aisnet.org/jise/vol30/iss4/1.
30. B. Kollöffel and T. de Jong, “Conceptual Understanding of Elec-
trical Circuits in Secondary Vocational Engineering Education:
Combining Traditional Instruction With Inquiry Learning in a Vir-
tual Lab,”Journal of Engineering Education 102, no. 3 (2013):
375–393.
31. D. Isoc and T. Surubaru, “Engineering Education Using Professional
Activity Simulators,”Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 916
(2020): 520–531.
32. M. K. Elshazly and H. S. Timorabadi, “Work in Progress: Exploring
Pedagogical Alternatives for Incorporating Simulations in an Intro-
ductory Power Electronics Course”(paper presented at 2020 ASEE
Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Online, 2020),
https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–35635.
33. L. A. Kumar, V. Indragandhi, and U. Y. Maheswari, Multisim, in
Software Tools for the Simulation of Electrical Systems (Elsevier, 2020),
113–148.
34. J. McNiff, Action Research (Routledge, 2013).
35. R. Santiago and J. Bergmann, “Aprender Al Revés: Flipped Learning
3.0 Y Metodologías Activas En El Aula,”Revista Interuniversitaria de
Investigación en Tecnología Educativa (2018).
36. R. D. Link and M. Gallardo‐Williams, “We Should Keep Developing
Digital Laboratory Resources in the Postpandemic Era,”Journal of
Chemical Education 99, no. 2 (2022): 519–520.
37. N. Kapilan, P. Vidhya, and X.‐Z. Gao, “Virtual Laboratory: A Boon
to the Mechanical Engineering Education During Covid‐19 Pandemic,”
Higher Education for the Future 8, no. 1 (2021): 31–46.
38. J. L. Martin Nunez, E. Tovar Caro, and J. R. Hilera Gonzalez, “From
Higher Education to Open Education: Challenges in the Transforma-
tion of an Online Traditional Course,”IEEE Transactions on Education
60, no. 2 (2017): 134–142.
39.S.Asgari,J.Trajkovic,M.Rahmani,W.Zhang,R.C.Lo,and
A. Sciortino, “An Observational Study of Engineering Online Educa-
tion During the COVID‐19 Pandemic,”PLoS One 16, no. 4 (2021):
e0250041.
40. V. Francisco, P. Moreno‐Ger, and R. Hervas, “Application of Com-
petitive Activities to Improve Students' Participation,”IEEE Transactions
on Learning Technologies 15, no. 1 (2022): 2–14.
41. M. Adnan, “Online Learning Amid the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Stu-
dents Perspectives,”Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology 1,
no. 2 (2020): 45–51.
42. G. AkçayırandM.Akçayır, “The Flipped Classroom: A Review of Its
Advantages and Challenges,”Computers & Education 126 (2018): 334–345.
43. T. Sitzmann, K. Ely, K. G. Brown, and K. N. Bauer, “Self‐Assessment
of Knowledge: A Cognitive Learning or Affective Measure?,”Academy
of Management Learning & Education 9, no. 2 (2010): 169–191.
44. A. Lee‐Post and H. Hapke, “Online Learning Integrity Approaches:
Current Practices and Future Solutions,”Online Learning 21, no. 1
(2017): 135–145, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1141915.pdf.
45. M. Gillie, R. Dahli, F. C. Saunders, and A. Gibson, “Use of Rich‐
Media Resources by Engineering Undergraduates,”European Journal of
Engineering Education 42, no. 6 (2017): 1496–1511.
46. F. Ferri, P. Grifoni, and T. Guzzo, “Online Learning and Emergency
Remote Teaching: Opportunities and Challenges in Emergency Situa-
tions,”Societies 10, no. 4 (2020): 86.
47. F. Hak, J. Oliveira e Sá, and F. Portela, “Thoughts of a Post‐
Pandemic Higher Education in Information Systems and Technolo-
gies,”in Third International Computer Programming Education Con-
ference (ICPEC 2022) (2022).
48. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, “An Educational Psychology
Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learn-
ing,”Educational Researcher 38, no. 5 (2009): 365–379.
14 of 15 Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2024
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
49. D. Vergara, P. Fernández‐Arias, J. Extremera, L. P. Dávila, and
M. P. Rubio, “Educational Trends Post COVID‐19 in Engineering:
Virtual Laboratories,”Materials Today: Proceedings 49 (2022): 155–160.
50. A.‐J. Moreno‐Guerrero, R. Soler‐Costa, J.‐A. Marín‐Marín, and
J. López‐Belmonte, “Flipped Learning and Good Teaching Practices in
Secondary Education,”Comunicar 29, no. 68 (2021): 107–117.
51. M. Hernández‐de‐Menéndez, A. Vallejo Guevara, and R. Morales‐
Menendez, “Virtual Reality Laboratories: A Review of Experiences,”
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM)
13, no. 3 (2019): 947–966.
52. R. Estriegana, J.‐A. Medina‐Merodio, and R. Barchino, “Student
Acceptance of Virtual Laboratory and Practical Work: An Extension of
the Technology Acceptance Model,”Computers & Education 135 (2019):
1–14.
15 of 15
10990542, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22810 by Francisco Portillo - Universidad De Almería , Wiley Online Library on [23/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
