An Observational Study of Engineering Online Education During The COVID-19 Pandemic

PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
An observational study of engineering online

education during the COVID-19 pandemic
Shadnaz Asgari ID1,2*, Jelena Trajkovic2, Mehran Rahmani3, Wenlu Zhang2, Roger C. Lo4,
Antonella Sciortino3,5
1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, California, United States
of America, 2 Department of Computer Engineering and Computer Science, California State University, Long
Beach, California, United States of America, 3 Department of Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering
Management, California State University, Long Beach, California, United States of America, 4 Department of
Chemical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, California, United States of America,
5 College of Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, California, United States of America
* [email protected]
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
a1111111111
The COVID-19 pandemic compelled the global and abrupt conversion of conventional face-
to-face instruction to the online format in many educational institutions. Urgent and careful
planning is needed to mitigate negative effects of pandemic on engineering education that
has been traditionally content-centered, hands-on and design-oriented. To enhance engi-
OPEN ACCESS
neering online education during the pandemic, we conducted an observational study at Cali-
Citation: Asgari S, Trajkovic J, Rahmani M, Zhang
fornia State University, Long Beach (one of the largest and most diverse four-year university
W, Lo RC, Sciortino A (2021) An observational
study of engineering online education during the in the U.S.). A total of 110 faculty members and 627 students from six engineering depart-
COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 16(4): e0250041. ments participated in surveys and answered quantitative and qualitative questions to high-
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 light the challenges they experienced during the online instruction in Spring 2020. Our
Editor: Mohammed Saqr, KTH Royal Institute of results identified various issues that negatively influenced the online engineering education
Technology, SWEDEN including logistical/technical problems, learning/teaching challenges, privacy and security
Received: November 22, 2020 concerns and lack of sufficient hands-on training. For example, more than half of the stu-
Accepted: March 30, 2021 dents indicated lack of engagement in class, difficulty in maintaining their focus and Zoom
fatigue after attending multiple online sessions. A correlation analysis showed that while
Published: April 15, 2021
semi-online asynchronous exams were associated with an increase in the perceived cheat-
Copyright: © 2021 Asgari et al. This is an open
ing by the instructors, a fully online or open-book/open-note exams had an association with
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which a decrease in instructor’s perception of cheating. To address various identified challenges,
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and we recommended strategies for educational stakeholders (students, faculty and administra-
reproduction in any medium, provided the original tion) to fill the tools and technology gap and improve online engineering education. These
author and source are credited.
recommendations are practical approaches for many similar institutions around the world
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are and would help improve the learning outcomes of online educations in various engineering
within the manuscript and its Supporting
Information files.
subfields. As the pandemic continues, sharing the results of this study with other educators
can help with more effective planning and choice of best practices to enhance the efficacy of
Funding: This research is partially supported by
CSULB Champions program through Coronavirus
online engineering education during COVID-19 and post-pandemic.
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
funding.
Competing interests: The authors have declared

that no competing interests exist.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 1 / 17

PLOS ONE Engineering online education during COVID-19 pandemic
1. Introduction
Engineering education has been traditionally content-centered, hands-on, design-oriented,
and focused on the development of critical thinking or problem-solving skills [1]. Various ped-
agogical methodologies have shown efficacy in enhancement of engineering education includ-
ing active learning [2], flipped classroom [3] and project-based learning [4–6]. Over the last
decade, online education has become a viable component of higher education in engineering
subfields such as electrical and computer engineering, computer science and information tech-
nology especially at the master’s or post-graduate level [7].
Although the online education has not been a new concept to educators in general, the
COVID-19 pandemic introduced an unprecedented and global need to explore online teach-
ing/learning opportunities within the entire spectrum of educational levels and majors.
According to the UNESCO, since the onset of pandemic, more than 1.5 billion students world-
wide (90.1% of total enrolled learners) have been affected by the COVID-19 closures and sub-
sequent educational changes [8]. The sudden closure of most educational institutions around
the world compelled the conversion of the face-to-face instruction into a fully online (or
blended/hybrid) format in a short transitional time. As a result, academic institutions that
were mainly focused on traditional face-to-face instructions encountered various challenges in
this transition [9].
Urgent, careful and evidence-based planning is needed to mitigate the impact of pandemic
on engineering education especially for vulnerable, disadvantaged and underrepresented stu-
dents facing substantial challenges beyond their academic responsibilities, including family
obligations, financial burden and additional employments [10–12]. Additional efforts need to
be taken to guarantee that the online instruction of engineering courses still meets the rigorous
requirements of the program accreditations such as Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET).
Despite the existing literature on online engineering education, to the best of our knowl-
edge, there has been no thorough (quantitative and qualitive) analysis of challenges and factors
affecting the pandemic online engineering education in the universities that were mainly offer-
ing face-to-face classes pre-pandemic. This work is aimed for addressing this gap by consider-
ing the following two questions:
1. What are the main challenges influencing online engineering education during COVID-19
pandemic for institutions that were mainly focused on traditional face-to-face instruction
pre-COVID?
2. What are the empirical insight and recommendations to address these challenges?
Sloan’s online learning consortium has defined the five pillars of high-quality online educa-
tion as: learning effectiveness, student satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, access, scale, and cost
[1]. Given these factors, we designed and conducted surveys among engineering faculty mem-
bers and students at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) to systematically investi-
gate the challenges encountered during the abrupt transition from face-to-face to the online
mode of instruction in Spring 2020. This paper presents the results of the conducted surveys
and propose solutions for the improvement of online engineering education. Sharing the
results of this observational study with other educators can facilitate a more robust continuity
of engineering education during ongoing pandemic. It can also aid with overall improvement
and consequently further promotion of online engineering education in the post-pandemic
era especially for universities that were previously focused on traditional face-to-face instruc-
tion. CSULB is one of the most diverse universities in the U.S. in terms of race/ethnicity, gen-
der, financial and cultural characteristics (e.g. with a large percentage of first-generation or

low-income students). Thus, the results of this study can especially help the institutions with
similar demographics to enhance their online engineering education during and post-
pandemic.
1.1. Related work

The existing literature has identified several challenges that need to be considered for the effec-
tive design and offering of online courses:
• Converting a course from conventional face-to-face to the online format is time consuming
and requires the instructor’s familiarity with (or willingness to learn about) online learning
pedagogy and instructional tools, including the learning management system (LMS) [13].
• Some students prefer to learn difficult concepts face-to-face [14] and believe that face-to-face
instructions provide deeper level of learning compared to the online [15].
• Designing a fair, equitable, and rigorous assessment to minimize cheating and plagiarism is
difficult in online environment [16].
• A successful education requires creating and maintaining a reliable and robust infrastructure
that supports both faculty and students [7, 17–19].
• Hands-on training to work with equipment, instruments, and materials in a controlled labo-
ratory setting is an inherent and necessary aspect of a successful engineering education [1,
10]. Addressing this essential aspect within a fully online teaching platform is challenging
particularly at the undergraduate level.
Recently, several studies have tried to identify the major factors and best practices that con-
tribute to the acceptance, assimilation and success of online education including course design,
course content support, instructor’s personal characteristics and students’ familiarity with and
access to technical resources [20–22]. Due to sudden conversion to online instructions, caused
be COVID-19, faculty and students at academic institutions, mainly focused on traditional
face-to-face instruction, encountered various challenges. As the pandemic continues, a small
body of literature on educational impact of COVID-19 is starting to emerge. A group of inves-
tigators conducted a U.S. nationwide survey study among faculty and students of STEM fields
in June 2020. Their results highlighted the gender disparities in online learning during pan-
demic: female faculty and students reported more challenges in technological issues and adapt-
ing to remote learning compared with their male peers [12].They also found out that 35.5% of
doctoral students, 18.0% of master’s students and 7.6% of undergraduate students would have
a delayed graduation due to pandemic [11]. Hispanic and Black undergraduates were two
times and 1.7 times more likely, respectively, to delay graduation relative to Whites.
Dhawan presented a comprehensive literature review on the existing pedagogical approaches
for the online instruction while identifying the strengths, weaknesses and challenges of adopting
each approach for the online education during the COVID-19 pandemic [9].
Vielma and Brey conducted a qualitative surveying from 170 students who took asynchro-
nous classes within two engineering departments (biomedical engineering and chemical engi-
neering) at a U.S. Hispanic-serving institution [10]. The goal was to assess the effectiveness of
their online education during pandemic. Their results indicated the students’ need in having
synchronous instructional content (in addition to asynchronous content) to enhance the social
component of learning.
Almaiah et al. conducted a semi-structured interview (using a list of general topics as inter-
view guideline instead of a structured list of questions) with 30 students and 31 experts in the

field of information technology from six universities in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Their goal
was to identify the challenges that impede the successful employment of online education dur-
ing pandemic in developing countries and provide educational stakeholders with useful guide-
lines to enhance education efficacy.
Our work conducts a thorough (quantitative and qualitive) analysis of challenges and fac-
tors affecting the online education of engineering courses by conducting surveys among stu-
dents and faculty members from various engineering subfields at one of the largest and most
diverse four-year U.S universities (CSULB). Thus, the presented work has several unique
aspects that distinguish it from the few existing studies focused on online education during
pandemic, such as the use of both quantitative and qualitative survey questions, and participa-
tion of large number of engineering students and faculty from various subfields and diverse
backgrounds. Our observational study provides empirical evidence for various solutions we
propose to enhance online engineering education during and post-pandemic, especially for
those universities with limited resources, or with a large population of minority, first-genera-
tion and low-income students.
2. Materials and methods

2.1. Engineering education at CSULB
California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) is one of the largest and most diverse four-
year universities in the U.S. Approximately 52% of CSULB student body are NSF-defined
underrepresented minority including 59.2% female, 46.9% Hispanic, 4.5% African American
and 1% Native American [23]. As a result, CSULB is recognized as a minority serving institu-
tion: namely Hispanic, Asian American, Native American, and Pacific Islander-Serving Insti-
tution. Also, more than half of our students are low-income or first-generation college
students. CSULB College of Engineering (COE) currently has more than 250 faculty and 5000
students (undergraduate and graduate). COE offers a total of 11 programs that are hosted by
six departments: Biomedical Engineering (BME), Chemical Engineering (CHE), Civil Engi-
neering & Construction Engineering Management (CECEM), Computer Engineering & Com-
puter Science (CECS), Electrical Engineering (EE), and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
(MAE). The majority of the courses in COE were offered face-to-face prior to pandemic. Since
2010, CSULB has been using an LMS called BeachBoard (BB) ̶ a customized version of "Bright-
space" platform developed and supported by "Desire 2 Learn" company. BB provides various
features to facilitate the course instruction, including a robust platform for communication
between the instructor and students, sharing course materials and recorded lectures with stu-
dents, discussion forums, design and management of assessments, assignments and grades.
Prior to pandemic, while some CSULB faculty members had been employing (at least some of)
BB features (e.g. gradebook) for their instruction on a regular basis, many others had opted
out as its usage has not been mandatory.
The unprecedented circumstances of global COVID-19 pandemic forced the swift conver-
sion of the mode of instruction from face-to-face to fully online for all CSULB engineering
programs (including 349 courses for a total of 1004 sections) within a transitional period of 10
days in March 2020. Hence, the teaching materials and assessment methods had to be devel-
oped “on the fly”. CSULB advised instructors to mainly focus on learning/using BB (and
Zoom videoconferencing) to convert their instructions to the online format. This recommen-
dation seemed reasonable given the availability and practicality of BB features. However, both
our students and faculty encountered various challenges during the online instruction in
Spring 2020. By the end of the semester in May 2020, CSULB announced that Fall 2020 semes-
ter was also going to be in the alternative mode of instructions. Thus, 313 engineering courses

were scheduled to be offered in synchronous fully online format. 18 additional classes were
exempted and offered in hybrid/blended format. These were the classes where the face-to-face
component is considered essential to meet the course learning outcomes and therefore could
not be conducted fully online, (e.g. laboratories and senior design capstone projects).
2.2. Surveys
Our goal was to identify and study the magnitude of various issues that our faculty and stu-
dents encountered during the six weeks of online instruction in Spring 2020 (March 23-May
8) and plan for an enhanced online instruction in Fall 2020. The faculty and student surveys
were designed holistically considering the overall verbal feedback received from stakeholders
during the Spring 2020 online instruction. The faculty survey consisted of 10 multiple-choice
and 2 free-response questions, while student survey included 8 multiple-choice questions with
fill-in or additional comment options for each question.
The faculty survey questions covered a variety of online teaching issues including, but not
limited to, the lack of access to necessary hardware (e.g. computer/tablet, stylus, scanner/
printer, microphone/headset, camera), software and reliable internet connection. Some ques-
tions focused on various learning assessment methods that instructors used in Spring 2020 (or
the ones they were planning to use in Fall 2020) including open-book or closed-book exams,
synchronous or asynchronous exams, fully-online exam (using randomized questions on BB)
or semi-online exams (where students solve the assigned problems on a paper, then scan and
upload their solutions on BB). Some questions focused on proctoring exams and the instruc-
tors’ perceived prevalence of cheating/plagiarism. Faculty were also asked to indicate the topics
that they were interested to enhance their skills on, e.g., basic or advanced BB features, Zoom
features, automatic grading, etc. The two open-ended questions provided instructors addi-
tional opportunities to comment about their online teaching experience and make any sugges-
tion or request to COE that could help with improvement of online instruction in Fall 2020.
The student survey was designed to identify the challenges students confronted during
online instruction in Spring 2020, including lack of access to hardware, software, reliable inter-
net connection, quiet/private space to study, potential issues of balancing study with work and
family duties, and stress management. The students were also asked about the difficulties they
had during the synchronous classes on Zoom (e.g., lack of focus or engagement, instructor’s
lack of familiarity with technology) or during the online exams (e.g., time management, issues
with methods of proctoring using camera). Copies of faculty and student surveys are enclosed
in the S1 Appendix for the readers’ further reference.
3. Results
The faculty survey was conducted using Qualtrics over a three-week period (June 20-July 10).
Similarly, the student survey was designed and conducted in Qualtrics afterwards (July
27-August 12). This later timeframe was decided based on the assumption that more students
(including the incoming students) might be available to participate in the survey closer to the
beginning of the Fall 2020 semester (August 21). Participation in both surveys were
anonymous.
A total of 110 instructors took the survey where 43% of them were full-time including ten-
ured/tenure track faculties and the rest were part-time lecturers. Also, 627 students partici-
pated in the survey: First-year students (4%), Sophomore (14%), Junior (30%), Seniors (35%)
and graduate students (17%). Fig 1 shows the distribution of survey participants among vari-
ous departments within the COE (question #1 on both surveys). We observe that all depart-
ments have relatively similar representations in terms of percentage of faculty and student

Fig 1. Distribution of the survey participants among various departments within the college of Engineering: (A) Faculty participants; (B)
Student participants.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041.g001
participants in respective surveys (9% BME, 5–10% CHE, 15–23% CECEM, 19–22% CECS,
18–22% EE, and 21–26% MAE).
These percentages are consistent with the size of our departments in terms of total number
of faculty and students. Therefore, our survey sample population could be a good representa-
tive of the general COE populations in terms of existing majors.
3.1. Logistical challenges for both students and faculty

Fig 2 shows the percentages of survey respondents who indicated various logistical challenges
they had during the online instruction period of Spring 2020 (question #3 on the faculty survey
and question #3 on the student survey). Close to 15% of the faculty had issues with software
license or no access to personal computer/tablet. About 20% of the faculty did not have access
to microphone/headset or printer/scanner. 23% of faculty had no reliable internet connection,
while 32% had no access to webcam or camera for the online instruction. Finally, 47% of the
faculty indicated that they had no access to or had technical difficulties with online writing
tools. Among the student respondents, 1% had no access to any computer/tablet, while close
to 5% had only access to a shared computer at home. 3% had no internet connection, while
26% had issues with reliability of their internet. 28% indicated having issues with software
access, while 26% had no printer/scanner at home.
3.2. Students challenges with online instruction

Fig 3 summarizes the prevalence of challenges students had with online instruction during
Spring 2020 (questions # 3–6 on the student survey). About 70% of students indicated diffi-
culty in maintaining their focus or experiencing Zoom fatigue after attending multiple online
sessions. 55% of students felt social disconnection from their classmates/peers, while 64% did
not feel engaged during the online classes. 60% of the students felt there was a lack of clear
guidance or communication from the instructors. Also, a quarter of students had issues with
online submission of assignments and exams, mainly due to the lack of access to printer/scan-
ner as we learned from students’ optional comments. About 40% of students had technical

Fig 2. Logistical challenges of online instruction from perspectives of faculty and students. The horizontal access represents the percentage of survey participants who
indicated the corresponding challenge. (A) Faculty respondents; (B) Student respondents.
difficulty and ineptness issues with using or navigating through Zoom or BB. 48% of the stu-
dents experienced time management issues during the online exams. In optional comments,
some students expressed their frustration with not being able to go back to previous questions
(a BB feature for the instructors to limit cheating). 23% of the students indicated that the
unavailability of the instructor during the online exam (in contrast to in-person exam) caused
challenges.
48% of the students specified that they either do not have camera or feel uncomfortable
turning the camera/microphone on during the class or online exams (question #7 on the stu-
dent survey). Optional comments revealed that many participants have privacy concerns with
Fig 3. Prevalence of challenges students encountered during online instruction in Spring 2020.

usage of camera/microphone or being recorded, especially if they were living in a crowded

home or shared space. Furthermore, some students experienced an increased level of anxiety
being watched on camera that hindered their focus and lowered their performance during the
online exams. 28% of the students indicated that they had difficulty with balancing work and
study. From the optional comments, we understood that the latter issue has been escalated for
many during pandemic. Some parents had lost their jobs and consequently the whole family
was relying on the part-time jobs of the younger adults (students) to survive financially.
Our survey also indicated that more than 50% of our students did not have access to a pri-
vate or quiet space to attend the online classes or to study. 55% of students also lacked motiva-
tion to study (question #3 on the student survey). The optional comments shed further light
onto the lack of motivation: the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic and loss of peer inter-
action/support were identified as the major contributing factors. Finally, 24% of the students
rated their overall experience of online instruction (question #8 on the student survey) as satis-
fying, 37% found it dissatisfying, while the rest (39%) were neutral.
3.3. Assessment methods used during emergency online instruction

Table 1 shows the prevalence of various methods that the faculty used to assess students’ learn-
ing during the online instruction of Spring 2020. Semi-online refers to an exam where students
solve the assigned problems on a paper, then scan and upload their solutions. Asynchronous
exam refers to a take-home exam while a synchronous exam is the one conducted during the
scheduled class or exam time. The survey allowed respondents to choose more than one assess-
ment method per question (because faculty might have taught multiple classes, held more than
one exam during the semester or applied multiple assessment methods in the same class), thus
the sum of the percentages would not equal to 100.
We observe that the fully online exams such as the BB quizzes were used by 63% of the fac-
ulty. BB quizzes provides the faculty with the convenient option of randomizing the order
and/or the parameter values of the questions. The instructor can also limit the view to one
question per page for students and prevent them from going back to previous questions. The
effectiveness of these options in limiting cheating/ plagiarism, and consequently the reduced
need for further proctoring, might have contributed to the high popularity of this assessment
method among the faculty.
The remaining assessment methods in the decreasing order of their prevalence were proj-
ect/term paper (50%), semi-online synchronous exam (40%), oral presentation/exam (33%),
and semi-online asynchronous exam (28%). Our survey also revealed that 70% of the faculty
used the open-book/open-note exam while 33% tried closed-book/closed note exams. The
preference of open-book/open-note exam among faculty could be also justified by the
Table 1. Learning assessment methods faculty used during the online instruction in Spring 2020. The respondents
could choose more than one option for each question depending on the number of exams administered during the
semester.
Survey Question # Assessment method Percentage of faculty who employed the method
Question #4 Fully online exam (e.g., BB quiz) 63%
Semi-online Asynchronous exam 28%
Semi-online Synchronous exam 40%
Project/term paper 50%
Oral presentation/demo 33%
Question #7 Open-book/Open-note exam 70%
Closed-book/Closed-note exam 33%
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041.t001

decreased need for proctoring tools. In fact, our data (faculty survey question #7) revealed that
among those faculty who employed open-book/open-note exam, only 27% used Zoom camera
and microphone for proctoring of the exam. 21% used lockdown browsers (e.g. respondus),
while 61% did not have any proctoring. However, when the exams were closed-book/closed-
note, 56% of the faculty decided to proctor the exam using Zoom camera and microphone,
18% chose to use the lockdown browsers and 35% did not proctor. We also evaluated the asso-
ciation of instructors’ perception of cheating/plagiarism with various assessment methods by
calculating the Pearson correlation of faculty’s assessment methods with their trichotomized
perception of online cheating (less cheating, the same, more cheating) relative to that of face-
to-face (faculty survey question #9). The results revealed no statistically significant correlation
between perception of cheating and assessment methods except for the following: Semi-online
asynchronous exam (correlation = 0.23, p-value = 0.01) and Closed-note/Closed-book (corre-
lation = 0.21, p-value = 0.03). This data analysis shows that semi-online asynchronous and
closed-book exams were associated with an increase in the perceived cheating,
3.4. Perceived faculty skills that needed enhancement

Faculty indicated various topics that they were interested to enhance their skills in, as summa-
rized in Table 2.
About 60% of the faculty needed to learn about the advanced features of BB (e.g. how to create
online surveys or make quizzes with randomized questions or personalized parameter values).
Also, more than half of the faculty were interested in learning about semi-automatic grading tools
(e.g. Gradescope). Close to 40% of the faculty needed to learn how to create a syllabus for an online
class or become more competent with using Zoom features. A similar percentage of participants
indicated interest in enhancing their multimedia skills (e.g. working with Kaltura Capture, Camta-
sia or Snagit). Finally, 26% of the faculty needed more training to become familiar with basic fea-
tures of BB. In the optional comments (faculty survey questions #11–12), some faculty members
expressed their concerns about the delivery of the hands-on components of their courses and
requested some general guideline on how to address this issue for an online instruction.
4. Discussion
In this section, we will discuss the challenges we identified and propose relevant interventions
to improve the online delivery of engineering courses during pandemic.
Table 2. A list of topics identified by faculty for further skill enhancement. Respondents could choose as many top-
ics as they were interested to learn.
Survey Topics Percentage of faculty
Question # interested
Question #10 The major requirements of syllabus for an online course 38%
Basic BB features: How to create/modify/improve BB for my course 26%
More advanced BB features: How to create online surveys /discussion 58%
groups/quizzes that reduce the potential of cheating, how to
automatically export grades to BB gradebook, how to use Master Shell in
BB, etc.
Zoom features (basic and advanced): How to schedule/record a meeting, 39%
how to use Zoom’s Whiteboard or OneNote, how to do breakout rooms,
etc.
Multimedia skills: How to create interactive multimedia files using 39%
Kaltura Capture, Camtasia or Snagit, how to use Alt captions in media
you generate (Word, PPT, page in BB) to facilitate accessibility
Assessment: How to use automatic grading tools (e.g. Gradescope) 54%
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041.t002

4.1. Student challenges

Our results revealed that a quarter of our students did not have access to reliable internet con-
nection, triggering a concern about widening of the digital equity gap among students due to
COVID-19 pandemic. With COVID-19 and the abrupt transition to online teaching, access to
reliable internet connection and personal computer/tablet have become major factors affecting
the learning outcomes for students. To address this issue, institution can provide WiFi access
on campus’s open areas and well-ventilated buildings while monitoring for social distancing
and sanitizing the surfaces frequently. For those who require computing devices, a loaner pro-
gram can be implemented where students can borrow laptops for a certain period of time to
access the course materials and complete the course requirements. The institution can also
provide a virtual desktop environment for students to access all necessary software. Using free
scanning applications on smartphones or tablets can address the lack of access to scanners.
Our survey also indicated that about 30% of engineering students had work-life balance
issues, while 55% of students lacked motivation, and 50% did not have access to a private space
to attend classes. These results are consistent with those reported in a recent study conducted
at Biomedical and Chemical Engineering departments of a Hispanic-serving institution [10].
While the percentage of our students who had issues with lack of motivation or private space
seemed to be higher, both studies highlight the necessity of providing more socio-emotional
support for students during the difficult times of pandemic.
Students identified various challenges they experienced in online synchronous instruction
of courses through Zoom including lack of peer-support/interaction, focus, engagement, and
clear guideline from instructors. They also indicated difficulties with time management and
Zoom fatigue. Peer-support/interaction has shown to improve the success rate of students
especially those from underrepresented groups [24]. Lack of peer-support during the online
instruction in the COVID-19 era negatively affects the motivation of the students. However,
the remaining raised issues could be addressed in part by employing appropriate teaching
techniques by faculty as follows: breaking down a long lecture into shorter segments with
more frequent breaks, encouraging group discussion among students, making themselves
available during the exams, providing students with a clear roadmap for the online course,
making the recordings of the live lectures available after the lecture is over. The latest would
help struggling students to learn at their own pace [10]. To assist with the time management
issue during the exams, faculty can design practice exams to allow students to familiarize
themselves with the questions’ setup and adapt with the exam’s style before the actual exam.
Pandemic has caused educational loss, delayed graduations, cancelled internships and lost
job offers. The new generation of students who have been away from face-to-face instructions
may lack certain learning experiences. For example, there might be a generation of engineering
students who performed the majority of their lab activities virtually and thus, lacks true hands-
on skills. While the pandemic educational gap will affect everyone, it is likely to impact under-
privileged students (e.g. first generation, low income or care givers) more profoundly [25]. As
a result, the socioeconomic factors would constitute key mediators in explaining the poten-
tially large and heterogeneous educational gap. This gap may have long-lasting implications
for income inequality and health disparities [26].
To reduce the educational gap, universities could adopt the practice of developing and
implementing diagnostic tools to learn where and how large the deficiencies are. Based on the
acquired knowledge, they could offer short remediation programs with long-term reorienta-
tion of curriculum to align with student’s learning levels [27]. For example, a summer session
that deals with hands-on aspects of lab safety or experimentations could be implemented. In
some cases, close coordination between the instructors who teach the courses in a sequence

may be required, so they can develop extracurricular materials or propose activities that would
help students bridge a gap in a specific topic. As the pandemic progresses, the flexibility of uni-
versity policies could also help with narrowing down the educational gap especially for those
students with lower socioeconomical status. Allowing students to adjust their course load, tim-
ing of assignments and tuition payment schedule would enable them to make reactive deci-
sions to mitigate the educational loss [25]. A need for further research on this top is
undeniable.
4.2. Faculty challenges

Establishment of institutional quality standards related to online education is of paramount
importance in online education. Effective communication is the key factor in bridging the
divide and reconciling administrator and faculty for an enhanced online education [28]. A
considerable number of our faculty reported lack of access to hardware, software and necessary
tools for online instruction. Especially, in the absence of traditional in-class whiteboard, many
faculty members indicated lacking an online writing tool. This issue can be addressed by insti-
tution’s budget allocation to acquire necessary hardware and tools (e.g. personal computer/
tablet with web camera, digital pen for touch screen devices, digital clipboard, document
camera).
Development of online learning assessment methods as rigorous as in conventional face-to-
face setting to prevent cheating/plagiarism is not straightforward [16, 29]. While one cannot
propose a single assessment method that would work ideally for all engineering courses and
classroom sizes, it would still be interesting to study how various online exams and assessment
methods (e.g. online quiz tools within the LMS, open-book or take-home examinations, stu-
dent presentations, peer-reviewed activities, cooperative quizzes [30], oral assessments [31],
course summary papers or online portfolios) stack up against each other. Since the onset of
pandemic, a limited number of studies (mainly within the fields outside the engineering) have
been conducted to evaluate the successes and challenges of the online assessments. The study
in [32] revealed that although the majority of undergraduate Management students required
more time and effort to prepare for the online exams (compared to the traditional exams),
they regarded the clarity and prompt grading and feedback features of the online exams sub-
stantially advantageous. Another recent study revealed that cheating remains one of the major
concerns for the online examinations and needs to be addressed using available techniques
including online proctoring and randomizations of the exam questions [33]. Few other studies
showed that the online examinations increased the level of stress and anxiety among medical
students [34, 35]. The added stress was in part caused by the lack of a robust examination plat-
form (i.e., reliable LMS) as well as not providing students with sample online practice exams.
Finally, a survey conducted among civil engineering students showed that high-achieving stu-
dents performed significantly better than low-achieving students in online examinations and
there was a significant increase in the students’ dropout rate in the 2020–2021 academic year
relative to the previous ones [36].
Our student survey results indicated that the use of camera/microphone to proctor the
online exams can raise equity concerns (for those who do not have access to camera and can-
not afford it) and privacy concern (for monitoring students’ private space). To address these
valid concerns, faculty are advised to choose alternative methods for reducing cheating during
online exams. Randomizing the exam questions by shuffling both the problem statements and
the multiple choices, and randomly selecting a subset of questions from a question library with
individualized/randomized input variables are viable practical solutions. Fortunately, most
LMS provide these options. However, although 99% of postsecondary US institutions have an

LMS in use, only approximately half of faculty at those institutions have been using it on a regu-
lar basis [37]. As a result, many faculty members were not familiar with the basic or advances
features of the LMS or other tools for effective online instruction. Our survey result confirmed
this observation. In fact, our faculty identified a broad range of topics related to BB or other
online teaching tools that they felt the need to enhance their skills in. Institutions could address
this issue by organizing training workshops, webinars, short-courses, and discussion panels for
the faculty to enhance their online teaching skills. At CSULB, stipends were offered in summer
2020 to further incentivize faculty participation in these professional development programs.
Hands-on training is an integral component of engineering education. Following the
abrupt conversion of classes to the online format in Spring 2020, many instructors adopted
simulations or processing of already acquired data for engineering students to complete their
course projects. Our survey indicated the faculty’s need to learn about additional effective
ways for providing hands-on training/experience. Depending on the content of the course,
employment of “home lab kits” and recording of the lab experiments could partially help.
However, design, preparation, distribution/collection of the lab kits or recording of the experi-
ments can be extremely time consuming for faculty especially given all the access restrictions
to on-campus labs and additional safety precautions imposed by COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual
labs might be a more effective solution. Additionally, remotely accessible labs where the exper-
iment setup is on campus and students use tools for remote control and managing of the setup
can be employed, whenever possible [10].
4.3. Summary of proposed interventions

From the analysis of the survey results we propose several intervention strategies that can be
employed by stakeholders at different levels to improve the online instruction of engineering
courses. The proposed strategies (the targeted issues and the survey questions that identified
them) are summarized as follows:
➢ Strategies for institution/engineering administration
• Budget allocation to provide basic equipment for the online instruction to both faculty and
students in need. Examples of such equipment include personal computer/tablet preferably
with webcam/camera, online writing tool, reliable internet connection (to address the logisti-
cal challenges indicated by students and faculty in response to question # 3 of both surveys)
• Creating a virtual desktop environment and allowing faculty and students to access neces-
sary software (addressing technical access challenges of online instruction indicated in
response to questions # 3, #7 and # 11 from the faculty survey, and question #5 from the
student survey)
• Organizing training workshops for faculty/students to further familiarize with online
teaching/learning technology and tools (addressing technical skills that were indicated in
response to question #10 of the faculty survey and question #5 of the student survey)
• Providing a syllabus template for online courses including all the important information
needed for ABET accreditation (addressing lack of clear communication or instruction
indicated in response to question #10 of the faculty survey and question #5 of the student
survey)
• Development and organization of systematic repository of resources pertinent to engineer-
ing online instruction (to enhance the faculty’s online teaching skills as the need was indi-
cated in response to questions #10–12 of the faculty survey)

➢ Strategies for engineering faculty
• Leveraging on the institution’s LMS to manage the course, grades, forum discussions and
exams (to enhance the faculty’s online teaching skills as the need was indicated in response
to questions #10–12 of the faculty survey)
• Breaking down a long lecture into shorter segments with more frequent breaks (addressing
Zoom fatigue indicated in response to question #4 of the student survey)
• Encouraging group discussion or problem-solving activities among students such as Zoom
breakout rooms (addressing the lack of social interactions with peers as indicated in
response to question # 4 of the student survey).
• Being available during the exams (e.g. on Zoom) to answer students’ questions (addressing
the lack of access to the instructors during exams as indicated in response to question # 4
of the student survey).
• Providing students with a clear roadmap and instruction for the online course (addressing
lack of clear communication or instruction indicated in response to question #5 of the stu-
dent survey)
• Making the recordings of the live lectures available after the lecture (addressing online
instruction challenges and lack of access to reliable internet indicated in response to ques-
tion #4 and question #3 of the student surveys, respectively)
• Administering practice exams for students (addressing issues with the online exams indi-
cated in response to question #6 of the student survey)
• Using open-book/open-note and synchronous assessment methods that support academic
integrity. Examples include randomized questions/ restricted time/ question pools on
LMS. (addressing the challenges with online assessment methods indicated in response to
questions # 4, #7–9 of the faculty survey)
• Avoiding using camera/microphone to proctor exams (addressing privacy issues with the
indicated in response to question #7 of the student survey)
• Employment of “home lab kits”, recording of the hands-on experiments and virtual labs to
partially address the hands-on training aspect of the course (enhancing online instruction
as indicated in response to questions # 11–12 of the faculty survey)
➢ Strategies for engineering students
• Using free scanning applications on their smartphones (addressing lack of access to scan-
ner as indicated in response to questions # 6 of the student survey).
Most of the proposed solutions were implemented at the CSULB college of Engineering in
preparation for Fall 2020 semester. Our future work will include evaluation of the efficacy of
the implemented interventions by conducting a post-intervention survey at the end of Spring
2021 semester.
This work contributes to the developing body of knowledge about the effect of pandemic
on engineering education by investigating the challenges and obstacles faced by a large group
of engineering students and faculty at CSULB which exemplifies an institution that previously
taught face-to-face engineering classes (predominantly), with a large minority population and
socio-economic gap. The recommended strategies for various educational stakeholders
(including students, faculty and administration) aims to fill the tools and technology gap,

enhance faculty skills in teaching online courses by taking full advantage of online learning
management tools, and finally, propose effective assessment methods for online courses while
considering the potential equity and privacy issues. These recommendations are practical
approaches for many similar institutions around the world and would help improve the learn-
ing outcomes of online educations in all fields of engineering.
4.4. Potential limitations of the study

Some limitations should be addressed in this study. We investigated the challenges of engi-
neering online education during Spring 2020 when the pandemic started, and a global emer-
gency occurred. Thus, the reported experiences and perceptions might have been affected by
confounding factors related to the onset of pandemic. As the pandemic continues and various
academic stakeholders explore and learn about new strategies to better adjust to the new nor-
mal, subsequent studies conducted in the near future might provide a more accurate picture of
the online engineering education.
We advertised the surveys to all faculty and students of the CSULB college of Engineering
by sending announcement emails to their university email accounts in summer 2020. While
the faculty survey’s response rate was 44%, the student survey’s response rate was 12%. The
low response rate of the students might have introduced some participation bias to the results.
Our main goal of conducting the surveys was to identify the urgent needs and challenges of
the general body of our students and faculty without focusing on any specific underrepre-
sented groups. Our assumption was that the demographics of survey participants are likely
proportional to those of the college of Engineering. Further studies with inclusion of race, gen-
der and socioeconomics demographics are needed to investigate the magnitude of educational
challenges that underrepresented groups experienced during the pandemic in comparison
with other groups. Consideration of some institutional data (e.g. grades, faculty/ student per-
ception of learning, financial aid requests) from both pre- and during pandemic would
enhance the study, as well.
The current work did not evaluate the degree of effectiveness and sustainability of each con-
ducted intervention. It also did not compare the efficacy of various alternative assessment
methods for engineering online education. A follow-up study is needed to address these
limitations.
5. Conclusion
We conducted an observational study to identify challenges encountered due to abrupt transi-
tion to online instruction of engineering courses during COVID-19 pandemic by surveying
(quantitively and qualitatively) students and faculty at our minority-serving institution. Vari-
ous logistical, technical and learning/teaching issues were identified, and several interventions
were proposed to address them. The results of this study add to the developing body of knowl-
edge about the effect of pandemic on engineering education. This study also provides empiri-
cal evidence for the proposed strategies to enhance (and consequently further promote) the
online engineering education during and post-pandemic. Our future work will include a thor-
ough study on evaluating the efficacy and sustainability of each proposed intervention.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Questionnaire for both student and faculty surveys.
(DOCX)

S1 Data. Students survey data in response to multiple choice questions.

(XLSX)
S2 Data. Faculty survey data in response to multiple choice questions.
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Daniel Whisler, Dr. Shabnam Sodagari and Ms. Asieh
Jalali-Farahani for their help with designing the surveys.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Shadnaz Asgari, Jelena Trajkovic, Mehran Rahmani, Wenlu Zhang, Roger
C. Lo, Antonella Sciortino.
Formal analysis: Shadnaz Asgari.
Investigation: Shadnaz Asgari, Jelena Trajkovic, Mehran Rahmani, Wenlu Zhang, Roger C.
Lo.
Methodology: Shadnaz Asgari.
Supervision: Antonella Sciortino.
Visualization: Shadnaz Asgari.
Writing – original draft: Shadnaz Asgari, Jelena Trajkovic.
Writing – review & editing: Shadnaz Asgari, Jelena Trajkovic, Mehran Rahmani, Wenlu
Zhang, Roger C. Lo, Antonella Sciortino.
References
1. Bourne J, Harris D, Mayadas F (2005) Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime.
Journal of Engineering Education 94: 131–146.
2. Lima RM, Andersson PH, Saalman E (2017) Active Learning in Engineering Education: a (re)introduc-
tion. European Journal of Engineering Education 42: 1–4.
3. Bishop JL, Verleger MA. The flipped classroom: A survey of the research; 2013. pp. 1–18.
4. Mills JE, Treagust DF (2003) Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the
answer. Australasian journal of engineering education 3: 2–16.
5. Asgari S, Englert B (2014) Teaching Pattern Recognition: A Multidisciplinary Experience. American
Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Conference- Zone IV. Long Beach, CA. pp. 44–52.
6. Asgari S, Penzenstadler B, Monge A, Richardson D. Computing to Change the World for the Better: A
Research-Focused Workshop for Women; 2020; Portland, Oregon, USA. IEEE.
7. Martı́nez PJ, Aguilar FJ, Ortiz M (2019) Transitioning from face-to-face to blended and full online learn-
ing engineering master’s program. IEEE Transactions on Education 63: 2–9.
8. COVID-19 Impact on Education. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse United Nations
Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
9. Dhawan S (2020) Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems 49: 5–22.
10. Vielma K, Brey EM (2020) Using Evaluative Data to Assess Virtual Learning Experiences for Students
During COVID-19. Biomedical Engineering Education: 1–6.
11. Saw GK, Chang C, Lomelı́ U, Zhi M (June 2020) Fall Enrollment and Delayed Graduation Among
STEM Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://nreeducation.wordpress.com Network for
Research and Evaluation in Education (NREED) Data brief. pp. 1–5 p.

12. Saw GK, Chang C, Lomelı́ U, Zhi M (August 2020) Gender Disparities in Remote Learning during the
COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of STEM Faculty and Students. https://nreeducation.
wordpress.com Network for Research and Evaluation in Education (NREED) Data brief. 1–5 p.
13. Ryan TG, Toye M, Charron K, Park G (2012) Learning management system migration: An analysis of
stakeholder perspectives. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 13:
220–237.
14. Jaggars SS (2014) Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student
voices. American Journal of Distance Education 28: 27–38.
15. Holzweiss PC, Joyner SA, Fuller MB, Henderson S, Young R (2014) Online graduate students’ percep-
tions of best learning experiences. Distance education 35: 311–323.
16. Lee-Post A, Hapke H (2017) Online learning integrity approaches: Current practices and future solu-
tions. Online Learning 21: 135–145.
17. Moskal P, Dziuban C, Hartman J (2013) Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher
Education 18: 15–23.
18. Gold S (2001) A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks 5: 35–57.
19. Kukulska-Hulme A (2012) How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in tech-
nology for teaching and learning? The Internet and Higher Education 15: 247–254.
20. Almaiah MA, Alyoussef IY (2019) Analysis of the effect of course design, course content support,
course assessment and instructor characteristics on the actual use of E-learning system. IEEE Access
7: 171907–171922.
21. Al-Gahtani SS (2016) Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural
equation model. Applied Computing and Informatics 12: 27–50.
22. Almaiah MA, Alamri MM, Al-Rahmi WM (2019) Analysis the effect of different factors on the develop-
ment of Mobile learning applications at different stages of usage. IEEE Access 8: 16139–16154.
23. 2019 CSULB Institutional Data. https://www.csulb.edu/institutional-research-analytics California State
University, Long Beach.
24. Williams SN, Thakore BK, McGee R (2017) Providing social support for underrepresented racial and
ethnic minority PhD students in the biomedical sciences: a career coaching model. CBE—Life Sciences
Education 16: ar64. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-01-0021 PMID: 29196425
25. Aucejo EM, French J, Ugalde Araya MP, Zafar B (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on student experi-
ences and expectations: Evidence from a survey. Journal of Public Economics 191: 104271. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271 PMID: 32873994
26. Kuhfeld M, Soland J, Tarasawa B, Johnson A, Ruzek E, et al. (2020) Projecting the potential impact of
COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher 49: 549–565.
27. Kaffenberger M (2021) Modelling the long-run learning impact of the Covid-19 learning shock: Actions
to (more than) mitigate loss. International Journal of Educational Development 81: 102326. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102326 PMID: 33716394
28. Wickersham LE, McElhany JA (2010) Bridging the divide: Reconciling administrator and faculty con-
cerns regarding online education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 11: 1.
29. Baron J, Crooks SM (2005) Academic integrity in web based distance education. TechTrends 49: 40–
45.
30. Slusser SR, Erickson RJ (2006) Group quizzes: an extension of the collaborative learning process.
Teaching Sociology 34: 249–262.
31. Jensen BB (2010) Oral assessment in engineering education. International Journal of Electrical Engi-
neering Education 47: 375–379.
32. Tilak P, Deshmukh M, Phadake S (2020) A survey on online examination during COVID 19 pandemic:
Perception of Management Students. Mukt Shabd Journal 9: 284–290.
33. Hassan B, Shati AA, Alamri A, Patel A, Asseri AA, et al. (2020) Online assessment for the final year
medical students during COVID-19 pandemics; the exam quality and students’ performance. Onkologia
i Radioterapia 14: 1–6.
34. Elsalem L, Al-Azzam N, Jum’ah AA, Obeidat N, Sindiani AM, et al. (2020) Stress and behavioral
changes with remote E-exams during the Covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study among under-
graduates of medical sciences. Annals of Medicine and Surgery 60: 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amsu.2020.10.058 PMID: 33163179
35. Mastour H, Ghalibaf AM, Niroumand S (2021) Remote Online Exams Anxiety during the COVID-19 Cri-
sis: A Cross-Sectional Study among Medical Students.

36. Garcı́a-Alberti M, Suárez F, Chiyón I, Mosquera Feijoo JC (2021) Challenges and Experiences of
Online Evaluation in Courses of Civil Engineering during the Lockdown Learning Due to the COVID-19
Pandemic. Education Sciences 11: 59.
37. Dahlberg T, Barnes T, Buch K, Rorrer A (2011) The STARS alliance: Viable strategies for broadening
participation in computing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 11: 18.

An Observational Study of Engineering Online Education During The COVID-19 Pandemic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Observational Study of Engineering Online Education During The COVID-19 Pandemic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

An observational study of engineering online

Competing interests: The authors have declared

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 1 / 17

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 2 / 17

1.1. Related work

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 3 / 17

2. Materials and methods

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 4 / 17

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 5 / 17

3.1. Logistical challenges for both students and faculty

3.2. Students challenges with online instruction

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 6 / 17

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 7 / 17

usage of camera/microphone or being recorded, especially if they were living in a crowded

3.3. Assessment methods used during emergency online instruction

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 8 / 17

3.4. Perceived faculty skills that needed enhancement

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 9 / 17

4.1. Student challenges

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 10 / 17

4.2. Faculty challenges

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 11 / 17

4.3. Summary of proposed interventions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 12 / 17

➢ Strategies for engineering faculty

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 13 / 17

4.4. Potential limitations of the study

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 14 / 17

S1 Data. Students survey data in response to multiple choice questions.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 15 / 17

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 16 / 17

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 April 15, 2021 17 / 17

You might also like