European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN: 0304-3797 (Print) 1469-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

A blended learning approach to teach fluid

mechanics in engineering

Ataur Rahman

To cite this article: Ataur Rahman (2017) A blended learning approach to teach fluid
mechanics in engineering, European Journal of Engineering Education, 42:3, 252-259, DOI:
10.1080/03043797.2016.1153044

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1153044

Published online: 24 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 633

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceee20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2017
VOL. 42, NO. 3, 252–259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1153044

A blended learning approach to teach fluid mechanics in

engineering
Ataur Rahman
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper presents a case study on the teaching and learning of fluid Received 9 June 2015
mechanics at the University of Western Sydney (UWS), Australia, by Accepted 8 February 2016
applying a blended learning approach (BLA). In the adopted BLA, various
KEYWORDS
flexible learning materials have been made available to the students Civil engineering; fluid
such as online recorded lectures, online recorded tutorials, hand written dynamics; e-learning;
tutorial solutions, discussion board and online practice quizzes. The engineering education
lecture and tutorial class times have been primarily utilised to discuss
confusing topics and engage students with practical issues in applying
the theories learnt in fluid mechanics. Based on the data of over 734
students over a 4-year period, it has been shown that a BLA has
improved the learning experience of the fluid mechanics students in
UWS. The overall percentage of student satisfaction in this subject has
increased by 18% in the BLA case compared with the traditional one.

1. Introduction
Engineering courses have traditionally been delivered face-to-face for many years. However, with the
rapid development of technological developments in the last three decades, courses are being
offered based on a variety of different eTools (Bourne, Harris, and Mayadas 2005). Based on the
online proportion of the course delivery, tertiary courses may be categorised into four types: (i) tra-
ditional: 0% online course component, i.e. content is delivered in writing or orally; (ii) web facilitated:
1–29% of the course content is delivered online; (iii) blended/hybrid: 30–79% of the course content is
delivered online and (iii) online: 80–100% of the course content is delivered online (Allen and Seaman
2011). In some developing countries, the traditional mode of engineering course delivery is still being
practiced. However, in many developed countries some universities and colleges have been offering
engineering courses online, or are considering this direction. Most of the engineering schools in the
developed worlds are now using a blended course delivery. The blended learning approach (BLA) can
be defined as a flexible learning and teaching method, which attempts to integrate the best face-to-
face and online course delivery modes to achieve the desired learning objectives for students.
The BLA has evolved from teacher-centred and student-centred paradigms of teaching and
learning in engineering. In essence, the BLA is viewed as a combination of these two paradigms.
The teacher-centred paradigm is largely based on face-to-face delivery where the ‘chalk and talk’
approach may play a major role. The student-centred approach is more in line with the BLA
(Jaeger and Adair 2014) and online delivery. The student-centred approach is supported by a
variety of tasks including problem-based and case-based learning and use of immersive scen-
arios, role-play and group work. In the teacher-centred approach, students need to show the tea-
chers that they have mastered the skills to the teacher’s satisfaction. In contrast, in the student-

CONTACT Ataur Rahman a.rahman@uws.edu.au

© 2016 SEFI
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 253

centred approach, students themselves can assess their learning to a certain degree. For
example, Reeves and Laffey (1999) proposed that in an undergraduate engineering course, pro-
blems might be defined in such a way that students have to learn, assess and demonstrate their
learning skills through a series of challenging tasks, such as planning of a mission to Mars and
designing a research station including a renewable power source to sustain life after the estab-
lishment of the station. These types of hands-on tasks assist engineering students to enhance
their practical problem-solving skills, which is regarded to be an important attribute of engineer-
ing graduates.
The hands-on exercises have been demonstrated to be effective in teaching non-engineering sub-
jects as well. For example, Pennell et al. (1997) discussed a web-based task where students were taught
business communication skills through temporary employments in a virtual recording company. In this
job, students had to make appointments, keep a diary, interview employees and write memos, letters
and reports. Applying this approach, in a fluid mechanics course, a group of students may be assigned
to design a water supply scheme for a rural community that could involve interviewing stakeholders (e.
g. local people, government officials, political leaders and professional engineers) and collate data,
carry out data analysis, complete design of project components (e.g. water pipeline and drainage net-
works) and present design to the stakeholders and hypothetical clients. However, in these tasks some
guidance and intervention by the teacher or a senior student may be beneficial to monitor the learning
process of the students and to provide progressive feedbacks to the students for attaining an accep-
table level of learning at the conclusion of the tasks. In this regard, tasks can be designed to reduce the
direct roles of a teacher; for example, feedbacks may be provided via skype or other technology
assisted off campus meetings. Reeves, Herrignton, and Oliver (2002) argued that the design of
complex activities is a central component of course design for online learning, which is also essential
for BLA. This has also been supported by various theories of learning such as situated cognition (McLel-
lan 1996), anchored instruction (Bransford et al. 1990), problem-based learning (Savery and Duffy
1996) and cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro et al. 1987).
In recent years, as a part of developing BLA, the use of learning management systems (e.g. Pro-
prietary Blackboard and open-source Moodle Software) has become widespread (Martin 2012).
Massive open online course (MOOC) could follow some of the conventions of an ordinary course
(e.g. predefined timeline and weekly topics), but MOOC may not carry a fee, require any pre-requisites
or formal accreditation (McAuley et al. 2010). Consequently, these types of courses may attract a great
number of students. For example, Lewin (2012) reported that one course, offered by a Stanford
Faculty in 2011, attracted 160,000 students; approximately 23,000 of these students completed
this 10-week course. In another case, Martin (2012) reported a Fall 2011 Stanford University
course, which consisted of weekly lectures containing two or three 45-minute topics consisted of
15–20 short videos, each video containing multiple-choice or fill-in-the-value types embedded ques-
tions for students to attempt. The class server was able to grade the students immediately. These lec-
tures were motivated by ‘Khan Academy’. The course though online, it was trying to achieve the
outcomes similar to a typical lecture-based course.
In a BLA-based course, offered in the University of Massachusetts Lowell by Martin (2012), a project
was assigned to the students. The teacher met once a week, in a 75-minute roundtable session where
discussion focused more on confusing topics. This is regarded as the ‘flipped class room’ concept,
which involved use of recorded lectures in the web and class room time for hands-on learning activities
(Day and Foley 2006). It may be noted here that the mere use of collaborative eLearning or active con-
structivist pedagogy may not guarantee desired outcomes. For example, when students perceive that
a course is badly implemented where they are overloaded with work and when there are no clear goals
and poor feedbacks on student’s assessment tasks, the students may rate the course poorly irrespec-
tive of pedagogy or technology being used (Ellis et al. 2008).
Most eLearning in the universities combines eLearning with a variety of face-to-face activities (e.g.
a BLA); however, there are growing numbers of universities that have been reducing the face-to-face
activities, mainly to reduce the cost, to meet the needs of students who are working while studying
254 A. RAHMAN

and who are reluctant to travel to the campus. Thus, many universities are seen to be inclined in
developing fully online courses. There are, however, positives and negatives of online courses. In
this regard, Martin (2012) stated that a modern university is a much larger ecosystem than its collec-
tion of courses; students attending on-campus courses derive great value from being in contact with
their peers, involving with leadership roles in campus and engage with research labs. This indicates
that a BLA would be preferable to a pedagogy strategy reliant completely on online course delivery.
Chandler et al. (2013) presented assessment of a BLA completed by more than 6000 learners in the
USA and internationally. They noted that in terms of achieved knowledge and overall satisfaction,
online instruction combined with face-to-face hands-on activities exhibited a statistically significant
improvement in the learners’ understanding of the course material. Allen and Seaman (2011) pre-
sented a report on online education in the US based on responses from over 2500 colleges and uni-
versities. They noted that in USA about 6 million students took at least one online course in fall 2010,
and 31% of all higher education students took at least one course online. They noted that one-third of
all academic leaders continue to believe that the learning outcomes for online education are inferior
to those of face-to-face instruction. However, academic leaders from online course offering insti-
tutions had a much more favourable opinion regarding online courses.
In this paper, it is argued that a BLA can be better suited in teaching so called ‘difficult’ subjects in
engineering like fluid mechanics. In this regard, a case study is presented for fluid mechanics classes
in University of Western Sydney (Australia). The students’ data of four recent years (two years tra-
ditional and two years BLA cases) are used in this study to demonstrate the effectiveness of a BLA
in the learning and teaching of fluid mechanics.

2. Fluid mechanics teaching and learning issues

Fluid mechanics is regarded as one of the most challenging subjects in the undergraduate engineering
syllabus. This subject is delivered generally in the second year in a number of undergraduate engineer-
ing courses such as civil, environmental, mechanical, aeronautical and chemical engineering (Rahman
and Al-Amin 2014). Learning of fluid mechanics is reported to be challenging due to its complex nature
and the level of mathematics involved (Alam, Tang, and Jiyuan 2004). Many students find this subject
difficult due to an inability in differentiating the concepts between solid and fluid mechanics. In the
former, there is no internal frictional resistance (i.e. viscosity), turbulence, hydraulic jump and vortex
unlike fluid mechanics. In Australia, many students enrolled in fluid mechanics lack the necessary math-
ematical background to understand numerous concepts involved in fluid mechanics, consequently
leading to failure in the first attempt of the subject. Fluid mechanics involves the use of a large
numbers of variables along with many equations of a relatively complex nature. The lectures are gen-
erally heavily inter-dependent; hence students who miss a few lectures often struggle in catching up.
There have been a number of studies reported in the literature dealing with learning aspects of fluid
mechanics and related subjects. For example, Leal (1991) pointed out that critical attention is needed
to solve problems in the areas of teaching related to fluid mechanics. Baldock and Chanson (2006) pre-
sented a combined task of problem-based and project-based learning where physical model based
data were compared in the areas of fluid flow modelling. The approach enabled students to
prepare high-quality professional reports in fluid mechanics. Chanson (2004) stated that the impact
of fieldwork on learning a hydraulics course in an Australian university was highly positive, where a
combination of lectures and field works enabled students to achieve better learning outcomes.
In another study, Johnson (1999) highlighted the weaknesses of having a traditional lecture-based
delivery of hydraulic engineering. Two different effective teaching techniques were proposed by him;
firstly, a problem-based learning approach to enable students to take responsibility for assigned tasks
by taking an active role in their own learning. The second approach was based on a cooperative learn-
ing that prepared students to work in a small team environment consisting of students and an
instructor using small project-based work and assignments. Alam, Tang, and Jiyuan (2004) presented
an eLearning method of teaching fluid engineering subjects that involved hands-on practical
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 255

experiments, video images of real-world laboratory experiments and simulations from computer-
based exercise. Furthermore, Alam et al. (2007) proposed a three-step teaching approach in fluid
science that could greatly enhance students’ learning outcomes, be cost effective, user-friendly
and likeable by students, which included composing video clips of laboratory experiments and
examples from computer simulation. Golter (2006) presented an eLearning method of teaching lab-
oratory components of fluid mechanics in Washington State University where students were allowed
to work in structured groups, which enhanced the communication skills of the students. These
examples show that a BLA in fluid mechanics should be more suited than a traditional approach
in teaching fluid mechanics as examined in this paper.

3. Fluid mechanics teaching in University of Western Sydney

Fluid mechanics is taught in the first semester of the second year of the four-year bachelor engineering
degree courses in University of Western Sydney (UWS). It has two pre-requisites: Mathematics 1 and
Physics 1. Fluid mechanics is the first course in fluid science in UWS and is a prerequisite to a
number of subjects in later years of the degree, e.g. hydraulics, hydrology and fluid dynamics. The
subject content of fluid mechanics in UWS is very similar to other engineering schools in Australia, cover-
ing fluid properties, fluid statics, energy equations, momentum, dimensional analysis and similitude,
flow in conduits, introductory boundary layer concepts, introductory open channel flow, flow measure-
ments, drag and lifts. The class composition of fluid mechanics in UWS in year 2014 is shown in Table 1. It
can be seen that the class consisted of only 8% female students, which is typical in engineering courses
in Australia, since the engineering profession is a male-dominated profession in Australia (Rahman, Sha-
nableh, and Shrestha 2008). About 40% students did not come directly from high schools. Only 17% of
the cohort were international students, which is much lower than many other courses in UWS and other
Australian universities. About 17% of students were repeating the subject in 2014.
A BLA has been adopted to teach fluid mechanics in UWS since 2013 where the author of this paper
served as subject coordinator and has been teaching the subject since 2002. The adopted components
supporting the BLA in fluid mechanics in UWS are illustrated in Figure 1. In the BLA, the face-to-face deliv-
ery approach consisted of a weekly 2-hour lecture and 1.5-hour tutorial class and 3-hour face-to-face lab
in a 13-week period. This was similar to the traditional offering of this subject in 2011 and 2012. In the BLA,
the lecture time was used following a flipped classroom approach to show selected YouTube videos to
demonstrate fundamental principles in fluid mechanics such as momentum, Bernoulli equation, hydrau-
lic jump, unsteady flood flow, non-uniform flow, aerodynamic effects, open channel flow and measure-
ment of streamflow. The lecture time was also used to go through the power-point lecture notes, explain
the confusing topics (such as when one can ignore velocity in applying an energy equation, and how to
use the Moody diagram) and to answer questions on difficult issues raised by the students.
In the BLA, at the beginning of each lecture, a good revision was provided covering the previous
lectures, in particular, the important concepts such as continuity, momentum, energy equation and
viscosity. Interactive discussion on difficult topics was initiated by the lecturer, which engaged the
students with the class and made the learning interactive and enjoyable. Progressive informal feed-
back was obtained by the lecturer through private discussion with many students. The attendances of
lectures were about 30–40%, but on three days’ of in-class quizzes, the attendance was about 98%. In
the traditional approach, the attendance of students at lectures was 50–60%, which shows that the

Table 1. Class composition of fluid mechanics in UWS (2014).

Number of students 222
Gender mix Male: 8% Female: 92%
Domestic vs. international International: 17% Domestic: 87%
Educational background School: 58% Diploma: 16% Higher education: 11% Others: 15%
Language spoken at home English: 57% Arabic: 17% Hindi: 5% Chinese: 4% Others: 17%
Country of birth Australia: 59% China: 5% India: 4% Iraq: 3% Others: 29%
Attempt status 1st attempt: 84% 2nd attempt: 13% 3rd attempt: 3%
256 A. RAHMAN

Figure 1. Components of BLA in teaching fluid mechanics in UWS in years 2013 and 2014.

BLA reduced the student attendance rate compared to face-to-face lectures. The final lecture in the
BLA case was on the reflection of the course, which was well attended (68%). The students who were
struggling with the content of the course were encouraged to consult with the lecturer to assist in
grasping the fundamental concepts of fluid mechanics, i.e. understanding the basic equations,
units of the variables and use of online materials. As a result, about 25% of students met the lecturer
privately to achieve a better understanding of the course content.
In the traditional approach (years 2011 and 2012), the subject consisted of similar face-to-face
contact hours with the students, but comprised mainly of a ‘chalk and talk’ type lecturing. Although,
power-point lecture notes were provided online before the lectures, recorded lectures, tutorials and
practice quizzes were not available to the students. Hence, the teaching was mainly textbook depen-
dent following a lecturer-centred approach.
The online system that hosted subject content, such as lecture notes, videos, tutorial solutions and
practice quizzes, was used to send notices to students (with an immediate email to students) for
issues that were found to be confusing/important. Students did not use the discussion board
much as they preferred discussing issues face-to-face during lecture time or during private consul-
tation. Recorded tutorials were viewed frequently (by over 80% of students); in particular, before
the in-class quiz tests. An informal feedback session was conducted on a sample of students, who
rated the tutorial class and handwritten tutorial solutions as the most useful resources (by 78% stu-
dents), followed by the revision of lectures at the beginning of lecture time (48%). The textbook was
regarded as almost useless, which indicated that the lecture notes and other teaching resources were
found to be adequate by the students to meet the learning objectives. This also indicates that the
textbook may be replaced by lecture notes in future. The lab report writing was regarded to be
the most difficult exercise: in particular, conducting a short literature review on the subject area of
the lab experimentation.
The success of adopting BLA in teaching fluid mechanics at UWS was assessed by (i) student feed-
back on unit (SFU) reports (conducted by the university using online method); (ii) results/grades of
students in traditional and BLA cases and (iii) informal peer feedbacks.
The SFU is used extensively throughout the university (Pears et al. 2014). It cannot be taken as the
sole measure of the quality and effectiveness of subject delivery however, as response rates are gen-
erally poor. It does provide, however, a relatively good impression of the quality of teaching offered.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 257

For fluid mechanics, the SFU was continuously poor for years 2002–2013 (12 years) and was in the list
of concerned units in UWS. This concern was addressed by changing lecturers by bringing in a
number of senior academics (one full Professor, one Associate Professor and two Senior Lectures:
all of them research active and highly experienced academics having lectured in high-rated univer-
sities); however, this still did not remedy the situation. It should be noted that the lecturer for the
subject during the four-year period (2011–2013) was unchanged; the major change during this
period being the two different teaching approaches: traditional and BLA.
In the traditional case, the SFU score for 2012 was much smaller than that of 2011 (61% in 2012 vs.
70% in 2011) (Table 2). Similarly, in the BLA case, the SFU scores for years 2013 and 2014 were also
notably different (72% in 2013 and 94% in 2014). This indicates that SFU scores can vary notably from
year to year even with the same approach of unit delivery. However, data from a greater number of
years are needed to confirm this finding. The average SFU score was 65.5% for the traditional case
(2011 and 2012), which was 83% for the BLA case (2013 and 2014). This shows a notable improve-
ment in the overall SFU score in the BLA case compared with the traditional case.
The results and grades of the students also improved remarkably in years 2013 and 2014 (BLA
case) compared with years 2011 and 2012 (traditional case) as can be seen in Figure 2. This shows
an increase by 10.9% in the number of high distinction (HD) and distinction (D) grades and a
reduction in the number of failing students by 6.7%. Also, there has been an overall increase of
6.8% of the number of students successfully completing the subject. In the traditional approach,
there were zero students achieving a mark of higher than 90% mark. In the BLA this rose to 3%.
Table 2 presents a summary of SFU reports (student response rate ranging from 30% to 40%,
which is the typical rate in UWS engineering subjects). Table 2 clearly shows that a BLA increases
the overall student-satisfaction rate for all the surveyed items. The overall percentage of students
that ‘strongly agreed’ and ‘agreed’ are 11% higher in 2013 (BLA case) compared with 2012 (traditional
approach). In 2014 (BLA method), there is an increase of 33% in levels of satisfaction compared with
2012 (traditional method). The overall score in 2012 is the lowest, which triggered the development
of the BLA for the subject.
It was found that both the grades and SFU scores were improved for the BLA case compared with
the traditional case. The grading metrics and SFU survey method and the lecturer were unchanged
during the four-year study period, which indicated that the BLA had improved the learning of fluid
mechanics.’
As a result of demonstrated effectiveness of the BLA in improving the success rate of students in
fluid mechanics, a number of UWS academics expressed an explicit positive view of the subject
(with BLA); in particular, the Director of Academic Program and Deputy Dean. As a result, a

Table 2. Analysis of SFU reports traditional vs BLA cases (% of students ‘strongly agreed’ and ‘agreed’).
2011 (%) 2012 (%) 2013 (%) 2014 (%)
Survey item (Traditional) (Traditional) (BLA) (BLA)
The subject (unit) covered what the learning guide said it would 79 68 84 98
I was able to see the relevance of this unit to my course 78 61 84 98
The learning activities in this unit have helped my learning 75 58 79 92
The assessments in this unit have helped me learn 72 65 63 94
I was able to learn from feedback I received in this unit 53 65 54 90
There were clear guidelines for all assessment tasks in this unit 63 45 71 92
The learning resources provided for this unit helped me to 66 64 67 89
engage in learning
The unit provided a reasonable amount of flexibility for study 66 65 63 94
The teaching and learning spaces used for this unit were 71 60 84 98
adequate
The amount of work required in this unit was reasonable 74 55 75 94
In this unit people treated each other fairly and with respect 75 74 76 96
This unit helped me develop my skills in critical thinking, 69 54 66 90
analysing, problem solving and communicating
Overall, I have had a satisfactory learning experience in this unit 69 58 67 96
Overall average 70 61 72 94
258 A. RAHMAN

Figure 2. Results/grades in traditional vs. BLA cases.

number of academics in UWS have since been encouraged to adopt a BLA, e.g. in soil mechanics
and hydrology. UWS has appointed a supporting team to assist in developing the resources for a
BLA, including recording the tutorial classes before the class and placing them on YouTube,
placing online practice quizzes on the web and monitoring and reporting student access and
usage to the unit coordinator.

4. Conclusion
This study examines the effectiveness of using a BLA in the teaching and learning of fluid mechanics
in the UWS. Before introduction of the BLA, fluid mechanics was regarded as a subject with a ‘high
failure rate’ accompanied by relatively poor SFU reports in UWS. Since the introduction of the BLA in
fluid mechanics in 2013, significant improvements in students’ learning have been observed, as
demonstrated by more positive SFU reports by students, a higher grade average and an increase
in completion rates. The grading metrics and SFU survey method and the lecturer were unchanged
during the four-year study period, which indicated that the BLA had improved the learning of fluid
mechanics. The particular advantages of the BLA are that it offers students the opportunity to revise
course content more effectively for difficult topics by replaying the recorded lectures, pre-recorded
tutorial videos and practicing the online quizzes. They are also able to use lecture and tutorial times
engaging in fruitful discussions with teachers where a big picture of the subject is demonstrated by
linking theories with real-world examples and recent research/developments in the subject. The BLA
has provided the opportunity of catering for students’ needs as they are required, such as allowing
less capable students a chance to catch up, whilst also facilitating higher-end students to enjoy the
challenges embedded in topics covered in fluid mechanics. The findings of the study are expected to
encourage academics of UWS and other universities in adopting the BLA in developing their subjects
by integrating the best aspects of face-to-face and online learning.

Notes on contributor
Dr Ataur Rahman obtained his PhD in civil engineering from Monash University, Australia in 1997, and Masters in Hydrol-
ogy from National University of Ireland in 1991. He served as School Honours Coordinator and Academic Course Advisor
in School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney (UWS) for eight years. He devel-
oped seven courses in civil engineering in UWS. He has contributed to 273 scholarly publications including 88 refereed
journal articles. He has supervised 17 PhD students. He was nominated for Vice Chancellor’s Excellence for Teaching and
Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) Award. He received the G. N. Alexander Medal from Engineers Australia for his
research on stochastic hydrology. He is fellow of Engineers Australia.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 259

References
Alam, F., E. Dilla, A. Subic, and J. Tu. 2007. “A Three-Step Teaching and Learning Method in Laboratory Experiments for a
Thermal Fluids Course.” World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 6 (1): 13–16.
Alam, F., H. Tang, and T. Jiyuan. 2004. “The Development of an Integrated Experimental and Computational Teaching and
Learning Tool for Thermal Fluid Science.” World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 3 (2): 249–252.
Allen, I. E., and J. Seaman. 2011. Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011. Newbury Port, MA: Sloan
Consortium.
Baldock, T. E., and H. Chanson. 2006. “Undergraduate Teaching of Ideal and Real Fluid Flows: The Value of Real-World
Experimental Projects.” European Journal of Engineering Education 31 (6): 729–739.
Bourne, J., D. Harris, and F. Mayadas. 2005. “Online Engineering Education: Learning Anywhere, Anytime.” Journal of
Engineering Education, 131–145. Paper 1. http://digitalcommons.olin.edu/facpub_2005/1.
Bransford, J. D., N. Vye, C. Kinzer, and V. Risko. 1990. “Teaching Thinking and Content Knowledge: Toward an Integrated
Approach.” In Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, edited by B. F. Jones, & L. Idol, 381–413. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chandler, T., Y. S. Park, K. L. Levin, and S. S. Morse. 2013. “The Incorporation of Hands-On Tasks in an Online Course: An
Analysis of a Blended Learning Environment.” Interactive Learning Environments, 21 (5): 456–468.
Chanson, H. 2004. “Enhancing Students’ Motivation in the Undergraduate Teaching of Hydraulic Engineering: Role of
Field Works.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 130 (4): 259–268.
Day, J., and J. Foley. 2006. “Evaluating a Web Lecture Intervention in a Human-Computer Interaction Course.” IEEE
Transactions on Education 49 (4): 420–431.
Ellis, R. A., P. Goodyear, R. A. Calvo, and M. Prosser. 2008. “Engineering Students’ Conceptions of and Approaches to
Learning Through Discussions in Face-To-Face and Online Contexts.” Learning and Instruction 18 (3): 267–282.
Golter, P. B. 2006. “Combining Modern Learning Pedagogies in Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer.” Unpublished Masters
of Science Thesis, Washington State University.
Jaeger, M., and D. Adair. 2014. “The Influence of Students’ Interest, Ability and Personal Situation on Students’ Perception
of a Problem-Based Learning Environment.” European Journal of Engineering Education 39 (1): 84–96.
Johnson, P. A. 1999. “Problem-Based, Cooperative Learning in the Engineering Classroom.” Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice 125 (1): 8–11.
Leal, L. G. 1991. “Challenges and Opportunities in Fluid Mechanics and Transport Phenomena.” Advances in Chemical
Engineering 16: 61–79.
Lewin, T. 2012. “Instruction for Masses Knocks Down Campus Walls.” New York Times, March. 4.
Martin, F. G. 2012. Will Massive Open Online Courses Change how we Teach? Communications of the ACM, August 2012,
55, 8.
McAuley, A., B. Stewart, G. Siemens, and D Cormier. 2010. The MOOC Model for Digital Practice; http://www.elearnspace.
org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf.
McLellan, H. ed. 1996. Situated Learning Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Pears, A., J. Harland, M. Hamilton, and R. Hadgraft. 2014. “Four Feed-Forward Principles Enhance Students’ Perception of
Feedback as Meaningful.” Paper presented at international conference on teaching and learning in computing and
engineering, IEEE, 272–277, 11–13 April, Kuching.
Pennell, R., M. Durham, M. Ozog, and A. Spark. 1997. “Writing in Context: Situated Learning on the Web.” In What Works
and Why: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary
Education, edited by R. Kevill, R. Oliver, & R. Phillips, 463–469. Perth, WA: Curtin University.
Rahman, A., and M. Al-Amin. 2014. “Teaching of Fluid Mechanics in Engineering Course: A Student-Centered Blended
Learning Approach.” In Using Technology Tools to Innovate Assessment, Reporting, and Teaching Practices in
Engineering Education, edited by F. Alam, 12–20. Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publisher.
Rahman, A., A. Shanableh, and S. Shrestha. 2008. Integrating Teaching and Research with Community Service,
Environmental Awareness and Environmental Engineering Education in Australia: A Review, 415–421. Sharjah: College
of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Sharjah.
Reeves, T. C., J. Herrignton, and R. Oliver. 2002. Authentic Activities and Online Learning. HERDSA, 562–567.
Reeves, T. C., and J. M. Laffey. 1999. “Design, Assessment and Evaluation of a Problem-Based Learning Environment in
Undergraduate Engineering.” Higher Education Research and Development Journal 18 (2): 219–232.
Savery, J. R., and T. M. Duffy. 1996. “Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and its Constructivist Framework.” In
Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design, edited by B. G. Wilson, 135–148. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Spiro, R. J., W. P. Vispoel, J. G. Schmitz, A. Samarapungavan, and A. E. Boeger. 1987. Knowledge Acquisition for Application:
Cognitive Flexibility and Transfer in Complex Content Domains. In Executive Control Processes in Reading, edited by B.
K. Britton, and S. M. Glynn, Vol. 31, 177–199. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.