Modified Blended Learning in Engineering

By Christine Enowmbi Tambe

Updated Mar 16, 2026

1. Introduction

In lab-based engineering teaching, moving online can strip out the practical experience students need most. This case study shows how AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow, Poland (AGH-UST) redesigned its Building Automation courses during the COVID-19 lockdown while still trying to protect hands-on learning.

Before the pandemic, AGH-UST had already introduced blended learning across several Building Automation courses, combining Moodle-based learning management systems with face-to-face teaching, in a pattern that aligns with best practices for blended learning. Practical experiments remained central because they help engineering students develop both technical and social skills. When universities closed and laboratory access disappeared, the challenge was no longer whether to use blended learning, but how to adapt it without losing the parts of the course that mattered most.

At the AGH AutBudNet Building Automation Laboratory (ABNLab), Ożadowicz describes how lectures and laboratory classes were reorganised for fully remote delivery. The revised model combined asynchronous and synchronous online activities with independent preparation, aiming to preserve the quality of student work while strengthening students' ability to search for, organise and apply knowledge independently. The paper is useful because it looks beyond emergency teaching and shows which changes were worth keeping.

2. Building Automation Courses – New Frameworks, Concepts and Tools

2.1. Lectures in the Blended Learning Mode with E-Learning Tools

Before lockdown, AGH-UST had already put some of the infrastructure in place that later made rapid adaptation possible.

Learning Management Systems (LMS): The remote exchange of study materials and lecture presentations was made possible through the University E-Learning Platform (UPEL). Because administrators limited the amount of material that could be stored there, lecturers also used services such as Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive, with links shared through UPEL. This gave students a single route into the resources they needed, even when the files sat elsewhere.

Lesson Module on the UPEL/Moodle platform: Lessons were organised into sequenced stages that matched the course schedule, with quizzes used to verify self-learning before students could move on. Students could also review and improve their answers. The Lesson Module made it easier to link out to study materials and extra knowledge sources based on how students responded, which gave the self-study process more structure.

Flipped classroom: Pre-prepared lessons on UPEL supported a flipped classroom model, a design echoed in student feedback on flipped teaching. Instead of using lecture time only to deliver content, the teacher could focus on discussion, clarify difficult points, and help students organise what they had already studied. Short Mentimeter questionnaires at the start of class encouraged participation, while Slido tests at the end gave a quick check on what students had understood. The benefit was clear: live teaching time could be used for sense-making rather than one-way delivery.

2.2. Lectures with Distance Learning during Lockdown

When teaching moved fully online, the existing blended model was adapted rather than replaced. That helped staff preserve continuity while adding more checkpoints and more direct support.

Online synchronous discussions: The repositories of study materials already available on UPEL were supported by synchronous discussions through MS Teams channels. The most important elements in PDF files were highlighted in advance to show students what needed the closest attention before later webinars and laboratory classes.

Tests: Regular tests were used to track how well students were engaging with the study materials and technical concepts. These were organised through the UPEL Test-Quiz Module, while the Lesson Module was also used for short end-of-lesson questions. The result was more questions to the lecturer and more exchange between students and staff in UPEL forums, which made it easier to see where students needed help.

Webinars: Webinars were used to deliver substantive knowledge in synchronous mode. Video and live chat created a workable substitute for direct contact between lecturers and students, and questions raised in the chat could be answered in short Q&A sessions at the end. With student consent, webinars were recorded using OBS Studio and made available only to registered students on UPEL, allowing students to revisit difficult material before later classes and tests. Summative tests, organised twice during the semester, were then used to verify whether the required knowledge had been retained.

Preparation of reports in small student groups: This approach was particularly useful for students with limited background knowledge of the course. To check that work on the reports was progressing steadily, students had to share the materials they found through an interactive Padlet board. That made the learning process more visible and helped encourage consistent effort.

2.3. Laboratory classes supplemented with E-Learning Tools

Laboratory teaching was the hardest part of the course to move online because it depended so heavily on direct contact between students, teachers, and specialist infrastructure. Even before lockdown, study materials and instruction guides for lab courses were made available on UPEL so students could prepare in advance.

To balance substantive knowledge with practical work, the first few lab meetings took the form of active technical discussions supported by demonstrations at different technology stands. Later meetings then shifted into workshop mode, where students applied what they had learned through activities at the lab stands. Knowledge and practical skills were verified through a UPEL test and through assessment of lab reports submitted by students. In effect, face-to-face time could be used where it added the most value, around equipment, application and feedback.

2.4. Laboratory classes with Distance Learning Model – Modified Approach and Solutions

When access to the laboratory disappeared, the course team reworked practical teaching so students could still engage with equipment, processes, and technical reasoning from a distance.

Communication: Communication about lab classes moved onto forums, and students were invited to enrol on all UPEL courses that included laboratory exercises. This created a clearer communication channel at a point when confusion could easily have stalled participation.

Video demonstrations: To provide students with both technical knowledge and practical context, the author prepared five video demonstrations of laboratory stands covering five building automation technologies. Each showed the equipment and integration software used in the exercises, supported by photos, software screenshots, measurement data, and parameter recordings. These materials were shared through the UPEL course repository, and short quizzes were added to focus students on the most important technical points before the next class.

Webinars: Each video demonstration of a particular automation technology on UPEL was preceded by a webinar where students could discuss the relevant technical aspects and raise questions. That sequence, first explanation, then demonstration, helped students interpret what they were seeing instead of treating the videos as passive content.

Diversification of information presentation: In place of reports, students were asked to prepare mind maps on the most technical and functional aspects of modern building automation technologies. This encouraged them to present, categorise, and logically connect knowledge in a less routine format. Although students were initially surprised by the approach, the paper reports that they showed commitment and ingenuity in preparing their maps.

Online synchronous work with equipment: Student groups were granted fully remote access to devices with IP network interfaces, along with the relevant software in the laboratory. Students configured devices according to exercise instructions and video tutorials available on UPEL. One of the teachers monitored the work to ensure safety and provide technical support, and students prepared short reports after the exercises. This was one of the most valuable elements of the redesign because it preserved a version of practical experimentation rather than reducing the course to theory alone.

3. Experiences

The experiences of the participants in this case study can be summarised as follows:

There was a noticeable increase in students' effectiveness in searching for and acquiring new information.
The flipped classroom model appears worth keeping, especially when it emphasises asynchronous individual and group work.
Lectures could be hybridised, with traditional face-to-face sessions supplemented by periodic online webinars. This would encourage students to use digital tools they are likely to encounter in professional practice.
The flipped classroom approach increased students' involvement and attendance.
Activities delivered through mobile devices, such as questionnaires, quizzes and tests, helped focus students' attention during teaching sessions.
Asynchronous individual learning was essential, but the effective use of that knowledge still required active technical discussion and practical work.

In short, the transition to fully remote teaching brought several benefits, especially in students' independence and use of digital tools. At the same time, Ożadowicz is clear that face-to-face contact between teachers and students remains a crucial part of the most effective blended learning model. For engineering education, the takeaway is not that practical teaching can be replaced online, but that a more deliberate mix of asynchronous study, live discussion, and supported remote lab work can make blended delivery more resilient.

FAQ

Q: How did the students feel about the shift from traditional to blended learning, especially in terms of their ability to express their opinions and concerns?

A: The paper does not report direct evidence on how students felt about expressing opinions and concerns during the transition. It does, however, describe more online touchpoints, including quizzes, forums, webinars and discussion spaces, that could make student questions more visible. For institutions interested in student voice, the obvious next step is to pair these delivery changes with structured feedback collection so staff can see whether students feel supported, overwhelmed or disconnected.

Q: Were any text analysis tools or methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of the blended learning approach, particularly in analysing students' feedback or learning outcomes?

A: The article does not mention the use of text analysis tools or methods to evaluate the blended learning model. That is a gap worth noting. Analysing open-text feedback from forums, surveys or module evaluations with text analysis software for education could show whether students found the balance between flexibility and hands-on learning effective, and whether confusion clustered around specific technologies, activities or stages of the course.

Q: How were student voice mechanisms incorporated into the assessment and continuous improvement of the blended learning model?

A: The post does not describe a formal student voice process for reviewing and improving the blended learning model over time. It focuses more on the teaching design than on feedback governance. In practice, a stronger review cycle would collect structured student feedback at several points, identify recurring themes, and feed those insights back into course design, especially around lab access, technical support and the clarity of online materials, following wider principles of student voice in assessment and feedback.

References

[Source] Ożadowicz A. Modified blended learning in engineering higher education during the COVID-19 lockdown, building automation courses case study. Education Sciences. 2020 Oct;10(10):292.
DOI: 10.3390/educsci10100292

Request a walkthrough

Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround