Original Article

International Journal of Mechanical

Engineering Education
The hybrid Project-Based 0(0) 1–27
! The Author(s) 2020
Learning–Flipped Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Classroom: A design DOI: 10.1177/0306419019838335
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijj

project module
redesigned to foster
learning and engagement

KJ Chua and MR Islam

Abstract
We present the design and implementation of a blended learning environment where
fundamental concepts belonging to a flipped classroom paradigm are applied to a
project-based learning module. Several in-class and out-class activities are employed
pivoting on the objective of improving students’ learning experiences in an engineering
project-connected curriculum. The key idea of this pedagogy study is to structure most
of the theoretical aspects of the subject matter in pre-recorded video lectures, online
media platforms, learning materials and quizzes. For students exposed to the hybrid
Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom pedagogy, it is mandatory for them to
watch the video lectures and partake the online quizzes before coming to class.
Accordingly, studio classes are not spent covering theories, instead time is spent on
discussions and small-scale engineering demonstrations so that students have better
perspectives on the actual application of theories. We compared results from two
classes of students – one is subjected to a traditional project-based learning while
the other undergoes a hybrid Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom. Key findings
have indicated a significant increase in fundamental formative knowledge, enhanced
problem-solving abilities and production of better performing artefacts with
regard to the set of design skills for students undergoing hybrid Project-Based

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Science Programme, National University of Singapore,

Singapore, Singapore
Corresponding author:
KJ Chua, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Science Programme, National University of
Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117576, Singapore.
Email: mpeckje@nus.edu.sg
2 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

Learning–Flipped Classroom. Survey results further highlighted that Project-Based

Learning–Flipped Classroom students were highly positive towards achieving better
project outcomes and are able to think critically in developing creative artefacts. As
a result, these Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom students are more active in
their learning process. This study provides a reference platform for educators who
are seeking new directions in learning/facilitating strategies that complement existing
methods in order to enrich the project-based learning experience of students.

Keywords
Hybrid project-based learning, flipped classroom, problem-solving, engineering design
project, engineering education

Introduction
Project-based learning (PBL) is a dynamic process that has the capacity to facil-
itate students to learn and understand fundamental content at Bloom’s highest
level while taking an active part in their learning.1 PBL provides a sustainable
platform for deep inquiry learning, which often leads to improved understanding
on how to apply acquired basic knowledge. Through authentic experiences and
interactive activities that engage students with content standards, PBL has the
capacity to be a positive delivery method for a traditional student-centred class-
room module. Within the active learning framework, many global studies have
proposed PBL2–4 as one of the most suitable means of achieving effective
competence-based education that integrates self-learning, knowledge, problem-
solving skills and creativity.5,6 The PBL model facilitates students to generate
their own learning process and to develop personalized solutions that are unique
to a prescribed engineering problem. Despite the numerous benefits of adopting
the PBL approach, there exist several key challenges. These include the amount of
time and resources needed to organize and administer PBL.7,8 Besides, within the
constraint of time and resources, PBL needs to be feasible and manageable for
both facilitators and students to incorporate active learning components.9
Additionally, students who are inexperienced in a collaborative learning environ-
ment may face difficulties in grappling with learning fundamental theories, work-
ing in groups and engaging in active learning activities.10
The question we posed ourselves is then how might we increase the productivity
for both teachers and students in a PBL framework? The infusion of a flipped
classroom (FC) just might just be the answer. FC was first evolved with the idea
that lectures are to be pre-recorded and to be watched at the students’ leisure pace
outside of classes, while the teacher assists students with their learning in class.
Advancement in technologies has made this operational mode a reality. By porting
teaching materials to an online platform to facilities out-of-class learning, teachers
Chua and Islam 3

have found innovative ways to employ during class time to engage students in their
active learning process. While theories and conceptual teaching videos can be
viewed at home, they also assisted in shortening the explanation time in class.
Accordingly, teachers can use the opportunity to employ enhanced means of learn-
ing and interactive activities in classes. Already there exist several FC case studies
that have positively demonstrated improved students’ learning and achievements,
as they become more engaged and empowered to take on added ownership of their
learning.11–13
Mason et al., in comparing the effectiveness of an FC to a traditional classroom
in an upper-division engineering course, documented several key findings.14 These
include (1) the FC enabled the instructor to cover more material, (2) students
participating in the FC performed as well or better on assessments including
quiz and exam questions and on open-ended and design problems and
(3) though students may initially struggled to adapt to the new off-class learning
format, they adapted quickly and found the FC format to be satisfactory and
effective. In a very recent work, Yan et al. observed that, in contrast to the tradi-
tional classroom, FC students’ interest, curiosity and learning initiatives were pro-
moted, while intrinsic goal orientation was comparatively strengthened.15 In
addition, students tend to have less extrinsic goal orientation coupled with lower
test anxiety than the students in the traditional classroom but with improved
control beliefs and better self-efficacy for learning.
Souza and Rodrigues, having investigated the effectiveness of applying FC to an
introductory programming course, observed that compared to traditional class-
room, students participating in FC had better programming self-efficacy as well as
obtained higher assessment grades.16 They further highlighted that FC offers stu-
dents the opportunities to enhance their problem-solving skills, independence and
persistence, self-regulation and team spirit. O’Flaherty and Phillips, after conduct-
ing a comprehensive review of FC, observed that compared to traditional class-
room teaching, there is much evidence emerging of improved academic
performance and student and staff satisfaction with the FC approach.17
According to McLaughlin et al., FC facilitates instructors to reinvent their class-
rooms in a way that empowers students to develop higher levels of cognitive skills
and to engage in a positive manner that will facilitate improved learning.18 In sum,
the common takeaway is that FC in contrast to traditional classroom teaching is a
convenient and professional avenue for students to strengthen their self-efficacy by
actively participating in learning while fostering a deeper understanding of their
subject matters.
Contrasting the process of PBL and FC learning, one begins to see how inte-
grating the two together can promote Bloom’s higher order learning. Together,
they leverage on the strength of one another to promote the streamlining of valu-
able time. Increased productivity that leads to enhanced learning is then expected.
As we continue to examine this hybrid concept, several other added benefits are
also simultaneously reaped. When educators combine PBL and FC experiences,
they see marked improvement in students’ learning. The hybrid pedagogy allows
4 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

teachers the opportunity to advance outside and inside class learning experiences.
Out of class, students can be provided with open-ended questions, engaging inter-
active learning activities and thought-provoking videos that can enable deeper
classroom discussions and activities. Content acquisition is self-regulated and
self-guided, enabling students to control when and how much content they need
to view. To facilitate learning, instructors guide students to the content, organize
interactive experiences, challenge students to think creatively and provide contin-
uous expert insights and feedback.19 Additionally, students, through deeper active
engagements with teachers and peers, are able to produce innovative proj-
ect outcomes.
Initially, it can appear that combining PBL and FC can potentially turn out to
be instinctive educational initiatives that are difficult to integrate, instead the two
initiatives converge into one that supports each other in harmony to promote
better students’ learning experiences. For this hybrid PBL-FC, several pedagogy
components are blended into one including (1) technology integration, (2) digital
curriculum and literacy, (3) PBL and (4) flipped learning. It is noteworthy that this
blended learning facilitates authentic learning experience, mimicking real-life
working experience.
The focus of this paper is to present key aspects of a hybrid PBL-FC pedagogy
that influence its effectiveness and demonstrate how it contributes to an improved
student learning experience. Based on the existing literature coverage, we strategi-
cally emphasize on the following research points to focus that can potentially
contribute to existing pedagogical gaps: (1) to develop an appropriate framework
and used it to design an engineering-based PBL-FC, (2) to understand the peda-
gogical acceptance of students undergoing PBL-FC and (3) to highlight key essen-
tial educational outcomes arising from a PBL-FC class.
A statistically validated study that draws on evidences from the comparison of
two groups of PBL students, one incorporating FC while the other remains a pure
PBL, is presented in this study. This paper commences by briefly discussing some
of the basic ideas about the design project, key learning outcomes and the module
assessment. The process of data collection in connection to students’ grades and
questionnaires survey results are then detailed. Next, the data analysis tools
employed to determine the statistical significant differences between the two classes
of students are described. Finally, the impact of PBL-FC and conventional PBL on
the pedagogical experience of both sets of students is discussed. The possible
benefits of this study are both practical and tangible, evolving better pedagogical
knowledge content will be useful and impactful for future batches of students with
varying PBL and FC experiences.

Proposed PBL-FC framework

The key features and unique characteristics of PBL-FC that distinctively differen-
tiate it from other learning approaches include (1) mounting of essential founda-
tion materials including notes, visual diagrams and videos onto an online learning
Chua and Islam 5

platform; (2) developing an open-ended challenging project; (3) requires inquiry to

learn and/or create something innovative; (4) requires critical thinking, problem-
solving, team collaboration and continuous communication to iterate ideas;
(5) adopting innovative learning methods to carve out the most creative project
solutions and (6) final project outcomes are demonstrated via a publicly presented
product performance. Figure 1 provides a schematic diagram depicting the new
hybrid PBL-FC learning environment that was designed and implemented in this
design project case study. Table 1 provides the design of the online FC materials
specially tailored to this year 2 ESP2109 which is a 13 weeks design module con-
ducted in semester 1.
Freeing up the time taken up for weekly lectures to discharge theoretical content
to students, the hybrid PBL-FC facilitates more active learning and interactive
activities including the employment of innovative learning methods such as mind
mapping, engineering analogies and round-table group discussions. More details
on these methods will be provided in ensuring sections.
There are several key reasons why PBL-FC is highly suitable for a module like
ESP2109 based on the potential benefits accrued to the students. These chief
benefits are

1. Incorporating FC to ESP2109 allows the content, often the theoretical/lecture-

based component of the design project to become more easily accessed and
controlled by the learner;
2. Combining FC and PBL can improve and motivate academically weaker stu-
dents in several manners. Firstly, students who have not been able to make an
authentic connection to their learning now have more time to learn fundamental
contents and access technical content at their own pace. Secondly, it can be
tailored to students with multiple learning styles and abilities. Thirdly, it permits

Figure 1. Input, process and output of the innovative PBL-FC methodology adopted for
ESP2109 (an engineering design module for a year 2 engineering science students that spans
13 weeks in semester 1).
PBL: project-based learning; Q&A: questions and answer; CAD: computer-aided-design.
6 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

Table 1. Design of the appropriate online FC materials specially tailored to this year 2 project-
based learning module.

Class week Online FC content

1 Video lecture on introduction to FC and project-based learning, rubric, rules

and regulations
2 Video lecture on heat transfer
conduction þ video experiments þ online
quizzes (5 MCQs þ 2 short questions)
3 Video lecture on heat transfer
convection þ video experiments þ online
quizzes (5 MCQs þ 2 short questions)
4 Video lecture on fluid dynamics
laminar flow systems þ video
experiments þ online quizzes (5 MCQs þ 2 short questions)
5 Video lecture on fluid dynamics
turbulent flow systems þ video
experiments þ online quizzes (5 MCQs þ 2 short questions)
6 Video lecture on computational fluid thermal þ online quizzes
(5 MCQs þ 2 short questions)
7 Video lecture on air properties and psychrometric (5 MCQs þ 2
short questions)
8 Video lecture on batch drying processes þ video experiments
online quizzes
10 MCQs
9 Video lecture on continuous drying processes þ video experiments
online
quizzes 10 MCQs
10 Video lecture on instrumentation of systems þ video experiments
online
quizzes 10 MCQs
MCQ: multiple choice question; FC: flipped classroom.

students to make a subtle transition from traditional mode of lecture/tutorial

learning to active learning;
3. PBL-FC helps students build vital workplace skills and lifelong habits through
active self-learning and
4. PBL-FC allows students to address global engineering issues beyond text books,
appreciate and experience career-like projects, interact with facilitators and
mentors, use technology and present their work to large-scale audiences.

Figure 2 compares the newly proposed PBL-FC with earlier PBL model imple-
mented for ESP2019. The implementation of an FC means that some key events
that have previously taken place in the studio sessions now take place outside prior
to each PBL studio session. A technologically enhanced learning environment is
adapted in this study. To facilitate the acquisition of technical content, a series of
video lecture of approximately 15 to 20 min duration, covering core curriculum
topics, was recorded. The videos include content related to fundamental contents
as well as demonstration of concepts through small experiments. Unlike previous,
lecture-tutorial module format, it is worthy to note that this is an engineering
design module and hence the applied aspect of the engineering concepts is key
Chua and Islam 7

Figure 2. A schematic comparison between traditional PBL framework and newly proposed
PBL-FC framework. The difference between time allocated for FC and studio sessions is com-
paratively depicted.
PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom;
PPT: powerpoint.

to this module. Typically, each video contains about less than 10 min of funda-
mental engineering concepts and 6 to 8 min of clips demonstrating experiments.
In addition, teaching material slides and relevant online media platform were
provided to reinforce understanding. To police the PBL-FC students’ out-of-class
effort to acquire the key knowledge through the online materials prior to each
studio sessions, quizzes were employed to be the main resources for the self-
evaluation and motivation. At this point, it is noteworthy that the incorporation
of the FC to the PBL module actually represents an expansion of an existing
curriculum rather than a mere re-arrangement of activities. Several innovative
facilitating and learning methods, highlighted in Figure 2, have been incorporated
to the proposed PBL-FC process. The use of mind organizes thoughts and ideas in
orderly manner in order to achieve creativity or find innovative solutions for
problems in a visually brain-friendly method. Incorporating of mind-maps pro-
motes active learning and discussions via (1) breaking down of complex problems
and ideas into simpler and easy to follow fractals, (2) systematic analysis and
processing of information during FC learning, (3) presenting key information in
a creative and easy to follow format, (4) effective brainstorming of ideas and
innovative solutions during group discussions and (5) classifying ideas into prag-
matic, workable, innovative and unfeasible ones. The use of analogies inspires
design innovations in students, e.g. draw an analogy with a washing-machine
tumbling, drawing analogy with buns steamer, ovens, air-conditioning systems,
etc. Finally, the employment of round-table discussions enables brainstorming of
8 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

ideas and generation of responses to key design questions. Questions that are
posed generate numerous potential answers. Answers are then discussed and
ranked by the students in terms of their benefits to design innovative and good
performing artefacts. To facilitate these innovative learning methods, each group is
often provided with additional resources such as an electronic tablet with specific
links to mind-mapping examples, online video platform (such as YouTube videos)
and pictures/brochures of commercial systems.

Research design, methodology and analytical framework

ESP2109 requires students to design a small dryer that is scalable up to process 500
kg of a selected agricultural product daily for a client. In this dryer project, stu-
dents apply principles of heat and mass transfer, fluid flow and computing skills
learned from earlier modules. The problem statement that was posted to the stu-
dents is as follows:

Recently, a reputable consultancy firm has hired you to work for them on various
design projects. One of these involves the design of a thermal drying system. Firstly,
the mode of heat transfer for drying will be by pure convection. Secondly, the basic
resources are provided to you and whatever materials that can be procured with a
limited budget. Thirdly, think outside the box as only your creativity/ingenuity sets
limits on your designs.

A total of 60 second-year engineering students were judiciously selected to partic-

ipate in this comparative PBL versus PBL-FC design module (ESP2109) study.
Each group had five students which resulted in a total of 12 groups being formed.
The group size of 5 was selected based on the number of students that each studio
classroom can accommodate as well as the equipment sets that are available. Also,
the module facilitators have agreed that a group size of 5 is an optimum size
considering the different tasks (design, conduct experiments, procurement of
items, fabrication, assembly, prototype testing and report writing, etc.) that the
students have to complete in order to prototype and test their artefacts at the end
of the design module. Due to the large number of students involved in the design
project, two classes were designed for this study. The first six groups were time-
tabled for a weekly 3-h Thursday session (class 1 – experimental group).
The remaining six groups were time-tabled for a weekly 3-h Friday session
(class 2 – control group).
At this juncture, it is worthy to clarify that ESP2109 is a year 2 undergraduate
design project module. Students who have participated in this study (experiment
and control groups) have completed their engineering year 1 modules. Therefore,
they are not new learners entering the course directly into year 2. It is also worthy
to note that these students have also experienced an FC module during their year 1
course and, therefore, are knowledge or have already acquired the working prin-
cipal of FC. Table 2 presents key demographic information on the 60 students
Chua and Islam 9

Table 2. Demographics of students.

Experimental Control
(hybrid PBL-FC groups) (pure PBL groups)

Number of students 30 30
Number of female students 12 11
Number of male students 18 19
Number of Chinese students 25 25
Number of Indian students 4 3
Number of students from other race 1 2
Number of local students 23 20
Number of international students 7 10
PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom.

participating in this design module. Accordingly to the design of experiment, there

were two classes: 30 in the experimental class and 30 in the control class.
Each team has to design a small-scale drying facility using hot-air blowers, with
a drying capacity that accommodates the slices from an entire potato. For this
purpose and to ensure that the local drying conditions are properly accounted for,
each team should design and build a preliminary version of this facility to test all
the relevant parameters and their impact on drying; for example, drying times,
relative humidity, flow rates, temperature, etc. In addition, each team is required to
formulate and solve a numerical model to aid them in their dryer design and, as a
result, develop a deeper understanding of the drying process. Based on their pre-
liminary findings, the team is to design a final small-scale drying prototype.
In terms of structuring an appropriate research design, the study employed
experimental comparative design to access and compare the students’ learning.
Data were collected by using four tools, namely, knowledge written test, students’
scenario-based problem-solving oral evaluation, product performance evaluation
and students’ opinion questionnaires sheets. In addition, the project deliverables
(dryer performance and product quality) provided the final assessment tool, which
enabled the evaluation of the overall performance of students. Table 3 provides a
quick overview of the assessment types, specified dates for assessments and the
rationale of conducting these assessments.
To verify the students’ achievement differences in these two classes, the stu-
dents’ year 1 scores from a fundamental heat transfer and fluid mechanics module
were obtained in order to perform a student t-test analysis. Incidentally, the year 1
module on fundamental heat transfer and fluid mechanics is designated as a pre-
requisite for this design module due to some key principals that the students need
to employ during the design and testing phases. Results showed that the computed
student t-test = 1.463 which is less than critical t-value, which is t = 1.672 (p =
0.05) as indicated in Table 4. Because the absolute value of our test statistic value is
smaller than the absolute value of our critical value, it can be statistically conclud-
ed that there are no significant differences between the two classes.
10 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

Table 3. Assessment types, specified dates for assessment and the rationale.

Assessments Date for assessment Rationale

Online quizzes Every week expect To monitor that students go through

week 1 for the online materials before coming
13 weeks for studio sessions
Knowledge written test Week 7 Conduct as an interim assessment at
week 7 (first half of the module)
where all materials on fundamental
knowledge have been covered in
flipped classroom
Scenario-based Week 8/9 Many student groups have started or
problem-solving designed their first version of their
oral evaluation artefact. Therefore, this is the best
period to present several scenario-
based problems to probe their
thinking and design innovation
Product perfor- Week 12/13 At week 12/13, groups would have
mance evaluation prototyped the final version of their
artefacts ready for testing
and evaluation
Peer assessments Week 7 and A mid-term peer assessment is con-
week 13 ducted to identify at the early stages
potential free riders. One final peer
assessment is conducted towards the
end of the design module

Table 4. T-test for students’ score before embarking on PBL module.

Class 1 (experiment)
Class 2 (control)

hybrid PBL-FC pure PBL

Characteristic M SD M SD dfT t-test p

Scores for heat 73.2 7.47 73.6 7.65 58 1.463 0.181*

transfer and fluid
mechanics module
Note: PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom; SD: stan-
dard deviation.
*p > 0.05.

The key learning outcomes of this design module include (1) upon successful
completion of the module, the students should acquire first-hand knowledge on the
principles of transport phenomena, (2) the students would be able to conduct
numerical simulations to strengthen their experimental observations as well as
Chua and Islam 11

obtain values that cannot be directly measured in situ, (3) the student would be
able to design and build a simple and inexpensive lab-scale convective air dryer
based on creative ideas and (4) like most industrial engineering problems, students
would be able to experience an open-ended project, with no unique solutions.

Method of data collection

The method of data collection included:

1. A one-day workshop at week 1 of the 13 weeks design module was first con-
ducted for both study groups (PBL and Hybrid PBL-FC) to introduce the
concept, importance and managerial skills of both PBL and PBL-FC.
Assessment methods were also described to all students including the time
that each assessment will be conducted.
2. PBL was implemented for students for both study groups using a simple case
study of designing and testing the performance of a lab-scale dryer having
constraints such as specific drying time and product quality.
3. Evaluation of the effect of students’ acquiring essential theoretical knowledge
was assessed through a knowledge test. This evaluation was conducted during
the third week of the semester. The test was conducted for both experimental
and control group based on a series of 10 short calculation questions. The total
score of the test was 100. Test scripts were marked, and scores from both groups
were tabulated.
4. Evaluation of the problem-solving skills for both groups was conducted during
the fourth week of the semester. Several dryer problems were formulated and
presented. Students were asked to present their solutions to several scenario-
based problems. Based on the technical-correctness, creativity and pragmatic
aspects of their solutions, scores were given. Total scores out of 100 were col-
lected and evaluated.
5. Performance evaluation of the dryer artefacts was conducted at the end of the
semester when all dryers have been built and tested by each group. Product
samples were weighed periodically to determine their dryness until their weights
were relatively constant. Drying times were then recorded, and samples’ colours
were measured to determine product quality. Test scores out of 100
were recorded.
6. Evaluation of the hybrid PBL-FC versus conventional PBL advantages and
disadvantages using students’ Likert-based five-point scale opinion question-
naire sheets for the two study groups was conducted to understand their opin-
ions at the end of the design module.
7. A mid-term peer assessment is conducted in week 7 to identify at the early stages
potential free riders. One final peer assessment is conducted at week 13 towards
the end of the design module. Students have been warned on the penalties of
being ‘free riders’ as a small percentage of the overall marks of about 5% is
awarded based on the peer-reviews.
12 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

Tools of data collection

It is worthy to know that essential data for this study were collected using four key
tools. These four tools were specifically crafted based on the knowledge needs of
the students to design and eventually to prototype and trouble-shoot their arte-
facts. To determine the validity of factor structure related to the research tools, a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has carried out using LISREL version 9.1. For
the CFA exercise, four models were tested. The models were (1) a single-factor
model, (2) a two-factor model consisting of (a) knowledge test and (b) scenario-
based test, (3) a three-factor model consisting of (a) knowledge test, (b) scenario-
based test and (c) artefact performance and (4) a four-factor model consisting of
(a) knowledge test, (b) scenario-based test, (c) artefact performance and (d) opin-
ion questionnaire. Readers are referred to our previous work for results on the
CFA exercise that demonstrated the reliability and validity of these tools.20
Tool 1 – Students’ self-directed knowledge scale: A written test comprising
10 short calculation questions related to heat and mass transfers, and fluid
mechanics was developed to test students’ fundamental knowledge. The questions
were based on key topics that the students were directed to learn in order to
acquire essential knowledge to complete the project. Test scripts were then
marked based on a maximum score of 100. The students’ performance were
then ranked based on a five-point scale where the highest acquired point of
5 corresponds to grade A, point 4 corresponds to grade B, point 3 corresponds
to grade C, etc. according to the department grading policy. Tool 2 – Problem-
solving skills: An oral scenario-based test was developed by several faculty mem-
bers who conduct research related to heat and mass transfers particularly in
drying. Several different scenarios related to industrial drying problems were devel-
oped. These problem scenarios examined students on their core learning concepts,
problem-solving strategies, contents of managerial skills and teamwork. The test
evaluated the students’ performance in carving out creative approaches to solving
different scenario-based problems. The approaches included identifying problems,
gathering data, analysing data to identify causes, identify consequences, listing
alternatives to solve the problems, advantages and disadvantages of proposed
method, ranking alternatives, selecting the best alternative and finally evaluating
the results to achieve the optimal outcome. Tool 3 – Artefact performance:
A scoring rubric was developed by the same group of faculty members.
Components included in the rubric were dryer’s innovative design to achieve
enhanced heat and mass transfers, product dryness, drying time and product qual-
ity. The total score for this segment was 100. The students’ group performance
were then ranked based on a five-point scale where the highest acquired point of 5
corresponds to grade A, point 4 corresponds to grade B, point 3 corresponds to
grade C, etc. Tool 4 – Students’ opinion Likert’s five-point scale questionnaire
sheet: This was developed by several faculty members who had rich PBL teaching
experience. It served to assess study group students’ opinions related to advantages
and disadvantages of PBL-FC and PBL as a teaching/learning strategy. It included
Chua and Islam 13

eight items related to advantages of teaching/learning strategy and six items related
to its disadvantages.

Statistical data analysis

Descriptive statistical number, percentage and standard deviations were used to
describe the study samples from both groups (PBL-FC versus PBL). Comparison
of means from test scores was performed using both t- and Chi-square test. The
level of significance selected for this study was p < 0.05 level. To facilitate ease
of data sorting and analysis, Statistical Product and Service Solutions software
version 20 was adopted and employed to determine the means, standard devia-
tions, t-test and Chi-squares results when applied to determine the outcome of the
test hypotheses.

Results
Figure 3 shows the percentage of students’ knowledge grades for PBL-FC and PBL
groups. Based on the Chi-test conducted, it was observed that there is a significant
difference of student’ knowledge grades for both study groups (significant p 
0.05). The figure shows that a higher percentage of students obtaining
A (16.7%) and B (36.7%) grades during the knowledge test for those who had
undergone the hybrid PBL-FC format compared to those (A-grade: 10% and
B-grade: 30%) who were undergoing traditional PBL. In terms of failure, students
from the conventional PBL group register a 3.3% failure rate while there were
none for the hybrid PBL-FC groups.
Figure 4 displays the relative distributions of students’ problem-solving grades
for both study groups. A significant difference of the students’ problem-solving
grades for both study groups (significant p  0.05) was observed. The figure shows
that a higher proportion of 46.7% achieved A and B grades for hybrid PBL-FC

Figure 3. Relative distribution of students’ knowledge grades for both experiment and control
groups (hybrid PBL-FC and pure PBL).
PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom.
14 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

Figure 4. Relative distribution of students. Problem-solving scenario grades for both

experiment and control groups (hybrid PBL-FC and pure PBL).
PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom.

Table 5. Mean and standard deviation for knowledge, problem-solving skills and project
deliverables.

Hybrid PBL-FC Pure PBL

groups groups

Characteristic M SD M SD dfT t-test p

Knowledge test 66.23 5.45 63.85 5.32 58 24.53 0.00*

Problem-solving skills 62.45 5.67 61.48 5.45 58 28.45 0.00*
Prototype performance 69.31 5.35 66.78 5.57 10 7.657 0.00*
Note: PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom; SD: stan-
dard deviation.
*p < 0.05.

students while 30% acquired A and B grades for students undergoing pure
PBL pedagogy.
Table 5 shows the mean and standard deviation of knowledge, problem-solving
skills and project performance for both study groups (significant p  0.05). There
were significant statistical differences for all the items tested between the two study
groups. The table further indicates that the highest mean was 69.3 for the proto-
type performance among students who are PBL-FC trained, followed by 66.8 for
students who were undergoing traditional PBL. Other interesting indicators
include the lowest mean values of 62.5 and 61.5 that were reported in connection
to problem-solving skills for hybrid PBL-FC students and traditional PBL stu-
dents, respectively. There was also significant difference between the knowledge
mean test scores for both groups of students.
After undergoing the PBL-FC program for a period of seven weeks, a total of
six air dryers were designed. Many unique prototypes were developed and fabri-
cated: a few employed unconventional drying mechanism including the rotational
Chua and Islam 15

drying system, a few fabricated dryers using the counter-flow drying method, while
a few had dryer designs that combined different drying methods. Examples of these
dryers are shown in Figure 5. These dryers was commissioned and tested with
potato slices to evaluate their performance and the quality of the potato product
measured. Figure 6 portrays the prototype performance results and the quality
aspect of the dried potato slices. Comparatively, a significant number of students
achieved A and B grades (83.3%) for the hybrid PBL-FC groups, while the per-
centage of students achieving A and B grades (50%) was much lower in compar-
ison for groups experiencing traditional PBL.
Towards the end of both PBL-FC and PBL facilitation methods, individual
scores were tabulated for all students, Figure 7 provides the final grades achieved
by students from both classes (PBL-FC versus pure PBL). It is highly indicative
that the final outcome illustrated that students who were subjected to the hybrid
PBL-FC learning process fared much better than students who were subjected to
conventional PBL method (significant p  0.05). It is apparent that up to 66.7%
achieved A and B grades for the hybrid PBL-FC groups in contrast to 40%
obtaining A and B grades for traditional PBL groups. This final outcome is not
unexpected considering earlier results displayed in Figures 1 to 4, which had pre-
sented clear indicators on the students’ performance.

Figure 5. Examples of dryer prototypes with dried potato samples developed by students
participating in this PBL design module – hybrid PBL-FC groups: (a) rotary counter-flow air dryer,
(b) cyclone rotary air flow dryer and (c) spiral rotary cross-flow air dryer and pure PBL expe-
rience groups: (d) tray loaded tunnel air dryer 1, (e) tray loaded tunnel dryer 2 and (f) batch tray
dryer. (Note: In contrast to the tunnel tray dryers produced by pure PBL groups, many of
the rotary dryers designed by PBL-FC groups had shorter drying time, produced superior
end-product quality and had potato slices that were evenly dried.)
16 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

Figure 6. Relative distribution of students’ prototype performance and quality test grades for
both experiment and control groups (hybrid PBL-FC and pure PBL).
PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom.

Figure 7. Relative distribution of students’ final design module grades for both experiment and
control groups (hybrid PBL-FC and pure PBL).
PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom.

Tables 6 and 7 portray the Likert open-ended surveys of the percentages of

students’ agreements regarding their perceived advantages and disadvantages of
the learning under conventional PBL and hybrid PBL-FC frameworks. It was
observed that 80% of the students believed that through the hybrid PBL-FC
learning method, their problem-solving skill has been improved; 90% of the
same group also indicated better ability to integrate knowledge to solutions. In
addition, close to 74% of the PBL-FC students indicated that they had more time
to participate in active learning sessions and benefitted from them. Most impor-
tantly, about 93% of the PBL-FC students related a highly positive and wonderful
learning experience after undergoing the hybrid pedagogy.
Chua and Islam 17

Table 6. Survey results of students’ survey questionnaire on the advantages and disadvantages of
hybrid PBL-FC groups (n ¼ 30) using the five-point Likert scale.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Description agree (5) (4) (3) (2) disagree (1) Mean  SD

Advantages
Being motivated to learn 53.3% (16) 36.7% (11) 10% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4.43  0.63
Enhancing critical thinking 46.7% (14) 40% (12) 6.7% (2) 6.7% (2) 0% (0) 4.27  0.82
Promotes problem- 50.0% (15) 30% (9) 6.7% (2) 6.7% (2) 0% (0) 4.10  0.80
solving skill
Developing effective 46.% (14) 36.7% (11) 10.0% (3) 3.3% (1) 3.3% (1) 4.20  0.83
communication skill
between students
Enhancing self- 56.7% (17) 40% (12) 3.3% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4.53  0.72
directed learning.
Better integration 53.3% (16) 36.7% (11) 6.7% (2) 3.3% (1) 0% (0) 4.40  0.68
of knowledge to
practical solutions
More time for active 46.7% (14) 26.7% (8) 13.3% (4) 13.3% (4) 0% (0) 4.07  0.32
learning and better team
working synergy
among members
Overall hybrid PBL-FC 66.7% (20) 26.7% (8) 3.3% (1) 3.3% (1) 0% (0) 4.57  0.83
provided a wonderful
learning experience
Disadvantages
Time-consuming 10% (3) 33.3% (10) 30% (9) 16.7% (5) 10.0% (3) 3.17  1.05
Feeling stressed 10% (3) 26.7% (8) 33.3% (10) 16.7% (5) 10.0% (4) 3.03  1.12
Experiencing 30% (9) 33.3% (10) 16.7% (5) 6.7% (2) 13.3% (4) 3.60  1.18
heavy workload
Having insufficient 20.0% (6) 20.0% (6) 33.3% (10) 16.7% (5) 10% (3) 3.23  1.27
time to complete tasks
Spending too much 10.0% (3) 10.0% (3) 23.3% (7) 36.7% (11) 20.0% (6) 2.53  1.03
time to look
for materials
Causing conflict 13.3% (4) 30.0% (9) 33.3% (10) 16.7% (5) 6.7% (2) 3.27  1.29
among students

Note: PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom; SD: standard deviation.

Two conditions distinctively differentiated the performance of the dryers

designed by the PBL-FC groups compared to those in the pure PBL groups.
The first condition relates to the capability of their dryers to ensure even drying
of all samples. These dryers employ innovative air–product interaction to promote
drying kinetics. Based on the prototype performance results, all dryers produced
by hybrid PBL-FC groups performed remarkably well in achieving good to excel-
lent drying times with evenly dried samples in less than 30 min. Except one of the
dryers in the pure PBL groups, all other dryers clocked drying time slightly more
than 60 min. The second condition concerns the product quality. Dryers from
18 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

Table 7. Survey results of students’ survey questionnaire on the advantages and disadvantages of
pure PBL groups (n ¼ 30) using the five-point Likert scale.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Description agree (5) (4) (3) (2) disagree(1) Mean  SD

Advantages
Being motivated to learn 16.7% (5) 43.3 % (13) 20% (6) 10% (3) 10% (3) 3.47  1.19
Enhancing critical thinking 23.3% (7) 30% (9) 26.7% (8) 13.3% (4) 6.7% (2) 3.50  1.19
Promotes problem- 26.7% (8) 36.7% (11) 23.3% (7) 10% (3) 3.3% (1) 3.73  1.08
solving skill
Developing effective 10% (3) 43.3% (13) 26.7% (8) 13.3% (4) 6.7% (2) 3.36  1.06
communication skill
between students
Enhancing self- 20% (6) 33.3% (10) 26.7% (8) 6.7% (2) 13.3% (4) 3.40  1.27
directed learning
Better integration 10% (3) 43.3% (13) 26.7% (8) 10% (3) 10% (3) 3.33  1.12
of knowledge to
practical solutions
More time for active 23.3% (7) 30% (9) 23.3% (7) 16.7% (5) 6.7% (2) 3.47  1.22
learning and better team
working synergy
among members
Overall traditional PBL 10% (3) 30% (9) 33.3% (10) 16.7% (5) 10% (3) 3.13  1.14
provided a wonderful
learning experience
Disadvantages
Time-consuming 13.3% (4) 80% (24) 6.7% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4.07  0.45
Feeling stressed 10% (3) 83.3% (25) 6.7% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4.03  0.41
Experiencing 16.7% (5) 79.7% (23) 3.3%(1) 3.3% (1) 0% (0) 4.06  0.58
heavy workload
Having insufficient 6.7% (2) 83.3% (25) 16.7% (2) 3.3% (1) 0% (0) 3.93  0.52
time to complete
tasks
Spending too much 6.7% (2) 86.67% (26) 3.3%(1) 3.3% (1) 0% (0) 4.00  0.37
time to look
for materials
Causing conflict 13.3% (4) 70% (21) 10% (3) 6.7% (2) 0% (0) 3.90  0.71
among students

Note: PBL: project-based learning; SD: standard deviation.

PBL-FC groups produced dried potato slices with very good colour retention when
measured using the spectrophotometer, while the potato slices from pure
PBL groups’ dryers had undesirable browning effect due to poor air flow and
air–product interaction. Based on the prescribed criteria for the dryer’s perfor-
mance and the eventual product quality, scores for both classes were tallied. It is
apparent that dryers that achieved outstanding performance in terms of drying
performance as well as reducing product quality degradation had highly creative
means of facilitating good product–air interaction as portrayed earlier in Figure 5.
Chua and Islam 19

Figure 8. Ideation process by the hybrid PBL-FC groups after each session of interactive group
discussion and active-learning sessions. Ideas are formulated to include mechanical and electrical
means, external devices and innovative factors that improve dryer design.

PBL-FC students innovated based on key fundamental heat and mass transfer
knowledge that they pursued prior to each PBL studio session, enhanced by cre-
ative ideas generated through the use of mind-maps, analogies and round-table
discussions. Figure 8 illustrates the ideation approach taken by PBL-FC students
to generate ideas. They developed a deep appreciation of these fundamental prin-
ciples by simplify them through conducting stepwise experiments using reduced
experimental models. In contrast, a number of dryer designs from the conventional
PBL groups were rather one-dimensional, adopting a basic chamber tunnel-like
design as the drying mechanism.

Discussion
It is apparent that the students had a highly positive and worthwhile learning
experience going through the hybrid PBL-FC course. The statistical analysis on
the grade scores illustrated in Figures 1 to 5 provided clear evidences that PBL-FC
20 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

positively influenced the development of key learning attributes including the abil-
ity to produce more creative and better performing artefacts. Concurrently, stu-
dents also expressed a higher degree of satisfaction with the knowledge they
acquired from FC and the time to learn at their personalized pace.
Students derived clear benefits from employing the PBL-FC framework to work
on a design project particularly applying the additional time available for active
learning with the facilitators. PBL-FC enhances basic knowledge acquisition, self-
directed learning and enhanced problem-solving skills. In contrast to the conven-
tional PBL format involving a substantial amount of time to teach basic knowl-
edge, students in the PBL-FC group gained more knowledge through uploaded
video lectures and teaching materials, enabling them to become more motivated
for learning. Therefore, PBL-FC is a potentially powerful approach for students to
acquired better practical problem-solving experience and self-directed learning.
PBL has been widely recognized as an active, collaborative and integrative
learning approach that engages learners while focusing on practical-oriented edu-
cation.21,22 In brief, studies on PBL have highlighted its advantages including
(1) PBL has a positive effect on student content knowledge and the development
of skills such as collaboration, critical thinking and problem-solving;23 (2) PBL
induces key benefits by increasing their motivation and engagement24 and (3) PBL
enhances active learning because it simulates learning in real-world problems and
makes students responsible for their learning.25 On the flipped-slide, studies con-
ducted on PBL have also documented several disadvantages including (1) PBL
requires a lot of time, particularly for first time students, to be provided to solve
complex project problems.26 This has often led to a lack of time available for the
material/content; (2) undergoing conventional PBL in a studio session can be quite
an intimidating experience even for mature students and it may be even worse for
beginners26 and (3) many successful PBL outcomes depend heavily on the success
of cooperative or collaborative learning.27 Students who are weak in experimental-
based projects and ignorant of the methods needed to collect key project informa-
tion will face difficulties28, and (4) students who have problems interacting with
their peers and knowing how to handle conflicts with the group will be greatly
disadvantaged when undergoing PBL.29
FC has the capability to address some of above-mentioned weaknesses of PBL.
The freeing up active and peer learning time is the key to facilitate students in
dealing with group discussions and group learning problems. In addition, FC
enables more time for students to complete various stages of their project during
each studio session by providing the quintessential online learning tools for student
to conduct out-of-class self-directed learning and assessments. As far as the arising
of anxiety in students who are facing difficulties in solving complex project
problems is concerned, the availability of more time for group discussions, peer-
learning and brain-storming will help to soothe their worries and create a more
pleasant learning atmosphere to ensure a higher degree of comfort in their learn-
ing process.
Chua and Islam 21

One of the key findings that this study has shown is that there were statistical
significant differences between students’ basic knowledge and problem-solving
grades between the two sets of students participating in PBL-FC and conventional
PBL. Releasing more time for PBL-FC students to discuss problems in group
activates relevant prior knowledge and facilitates the development of new infor-
mation that will impact project outcomes. Acquiring knowledge at their own pace
for PBL-FC students enabled them to develop deeper understanding on key engi-
neering knowledge in order to better handle the different project phases. The out-
of-class self-directed learning experience also provided them with the edge of
knowing how and where to search for new knowledge. Acquiring critical and
essential knowledge is the key towards developing successful problem-
solving strategies.
Typically, for some PBL students, it is to be expected that unfamiliarity and the
lack of experience in dealing with a large scale open-ended project may instil
uneasiness or even fear in them. A more structured approach to achieving optimal
learning and understanding would be their preference. In some cases, when stu-
dents are first introduced to PBL, many could be feeling uncomfortable and unfa-
miliar with their role and that of the teacher. Indeed, in some cases, standalone
PBL may lead to an overload of work, particularly when there can be an imbalance
in terms of equal effort distribution within the group. Louise has mentioned that it
is understandable that the transition from a traditional learning method to PBL
can plague students with feeling of insecurity and anxiety, confusion, a lack of a
sense of purpose and concern about reduced efficiency in learning.30 An online
learning platform coupled to PBL can reduce such anxiety and insecurity, as they
prepare for each studio session with prepared knowledge. In addition, freeing up of
time for active learning engagement will empower them with more confidence and
ability to cultivate innovative ideas to address their problems and challenges along
the way.
Results from the present study have also highlighted that there were significant
grade differences in terms of delivering the final outcome of this dryer design
project between the two groups of students (PBL-FC versus PBL). Several inno-
vative dryers were designed and prototyped by students from PBL-FC groups.
These dryers performed better, had shorter drying time to achieve the desired
product dryness and produced better quality dried samples. These observations
may be attributed to better techniques of acquiring relevant key knowledge
through FC and enhanced development of problem-solving skills through
enhanced active learning PBL experience. Problems in design projects are used
to create a gap between existing knowledge and new knowledge in order to be
able to handle and manage problems adequately and consequently guide the self-
study.31 The design of an FC framework to adequately incorporate to PBL helps
to bridge this gap faster and more efficiently, enabling students to produce better
project end results.
A number of existing studies have demonstrated that simply by incorporating
the flipped model to any existing pedagogies enhanced the students’ learning
22 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

experience and promoted their empowerment, development and engagement.32,33

Additionally, the flipped model also facilitated more independent learners,
increased group collaboration and greater innovation with learning.6,34 The expo-
sure to FC evolved students who are better communicators and equipped with
enhanced interpersonal and problem-solving skills.35
Consistent with observations from literature, the survey conducted in this study
revealed that a large percentage of PBL-FC students have highlighted that the
PBL-FC learning platform has promoted their critical thinking, enhanced and
sharpened their problem-solving skills, deepened their interaction with various
individuals and had highly active group participations during the PBL studio ses-
sions. These findings are not unexpected as the essence of incorporating FC
enabled more time for the implementation of interactive discussions. Instructors
then had the luxury of employing innovative means of facilitating discussions and
learning. In this study, the innovative means refer to the use of mind map, anal-
ogies and round-table group discussions. It is apparent that students were able to
cultivate enhanced critical thoughts and improved problem-solving abilities
through these innovatively tailored active learning sessions. In contrast, there
was a smaller percentage of endorsement from the pure PBL students.
With the introduction of FC to PBL, more students were better receptive of
PBL mode of learning. Comparatively, a higher percentage of the PBL students
indicated the disadvantages of PBL mode of learning. Many conveyed that the
PBL method was time-consuming, resulted in a heavier workload and many had
insufficient time to complete their tasks at hand. Also, they spent much of their
time searching for a variety of source information, which can be markedly miti-
gated somewhat by the uploading of many source links for students in the
PBL-FC groups.
The survey further indicates that up to 86.6% of the PBL-FC respondents have
opined that PBL module to have provided a wonderful learning experience, where-
as only 40% of the pure PBL respondents evaluated their PBL experience as being
average or below average. According to several PBL studies, there are evidences
that many PBL students potentially have difficulties benefitting from self-directed
learning without providing good resources involving out-of-class technical-content
related materials, particularly when these content are necessary in complex proj-
ects.36,37 Chief among these difficulties are those associated with initiating inquiry,
directing investigations, managing learning time and using technology productive-
ly to sourcing of relevant materials. In contrast, the impact of incorporating FC on
students’ learning is significant. By confining the engineering and mathematical
theories to pre-recorded video lectures provides the advantageous platform for
highly personalized learning experience, developing inquiry minds and enhancing
the productive use of technology. With the availability of an online learning plat-
form outside of class, students can pause, rewind and re-listen to the video-lecture
parts that they find hardest and most complicated to instantly digest. Additionally,
students may choose the time of the day to watch the video lecture. This eliminates
the existing problem that is inherent in traditional PBL settings when some
Chua and Islam 23

students may already be tired or mentally over-loaded at the start of the PBL
session after having attended many other classes on the same day.
This study also revealed that up to 76% of PBL-FC students after experiencing
FC express their PBL preference while a significantly lower 36% of the pure PBL
students indicate their endorsement for the PBL method.
Among the advantages of having incorporating FC to PBL include (1) a flexible
environment during FC activities provided them with multiple learning vehicles
and opportunities for learning-by-doing,38 (2) opportunities to facilitate enhanced
active learning sessions that are highly engaging to promote creativity and inno-
vation in their final project delivery and (3) enhanced linking of theory to practice
as FC promotes active discussion and participation which is associated with
improved learner attitudes and efforts to deliver best project outcomes.12
Therefore, students who also experience FC certainly possess key advantages
over pure PBL students. It is, therefore, not unexpected that these PBL-FC stu-
dents are more receptive of PBL and are able to relate to a more positive
PBL experience.
Undergoing a PBL course is an invaluable and awesome experience for students
especially engineering students who are expected to conduct several simultaneous
projects at higher academic levels. Well equipped with good PBL experience
empowers students to make inferences that link up theoretical concepts and
hands-on skills to the specific objectives and constraints of the project. Thus, the
synergetic FC-PBL element facilitates students to further develop and explore new
knowledge through both self-directed and active learning that will eventually cul-
minate towards a remarkable project delivery.
In sum, both qualitative and quantitative results that emerged from our study
lend strong support to the concept that the incorporation of FC to PBL promotes
a constructivist-inspired PBL environment as the preferred mode of learning as
evident in 86% of PBL-FC students’ responses shown in Figure 9.

Limitation of the study

Although results are only available for comparing hybrid PBL-FC and conven-
tional PBL students, they have clearly indicated the advantages of having FC
experience in preparing students for future PBL-related project works.
Nevertheless, there exist some limitations to the present study. Firstly, this is a
pioneering effort to compare both teaching/learning modes (PBL-FC versus PBL).
Certainly, a greater number of future studies of this nature would help to reaffirm
the importance of incorporating various degrees of FC in accomplishing positive
project outcomes. Secondly, the success of the FC learning environment presented
here hinges on the students’ compliance to the learning environment. In particular,
students had to watch the video lectures and complete the online quizzes before
coming to class with a basic understanding of the theory. Despite installing
the online quizzes as a policing mechanism, on a weekly basis, only 85% to
90% of the PBL-FC stringently followed the recommendation of conducting the
24 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

Figure 9. Preferences and expectations of students undergoing hybrid PBL-FC and pure PBL
and the level of PBL-FC to promote future job readiness.
PBL: project-based learning; PBL-FC: Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom.

out-of-classroom activities. Perhaps a more timely intervention is to allow 30 min

to those students who missed out these activities to watch the video lectures and
complete the quizzes before joining the others in the PBL-FC flow. Finally, there is
at present no mechanism to measure deep learning among the students who are
able to critically learning new ideas and facts and put them into the original cog-
nitive structure. Deep learners can communicate between many ideas and be able
to conduct existing knowledge migration to the new situation, make decisions and
solve the problem.39 In future, we hope to develop and implement an assessment
tool that can accurately evaluate engineering reasoning and critical thinking based
on deep learning.

Conclusions
Several key points have emerged from the data analysis of this hybrid PBL-FC
vis-à-vis PBL study. These include

1. Qualitative and quantitative analyses have indicated a significant increase in

fundamental formative knowledge, enhanced problem-solving abilities and pro-
duction of better performing artefacts with regards to the set of design skills for
students undergoing hybrid PBL-FC compared to pure PBL.
2. Likert open-ended survey responses have conveyed an overall positive students’
perception of the PBL-FC approach, and qualitative analysis has shown appar-
ent evidence of students’ efforts to conduct pre-class self-directed online learn-
ing and to actively and deeply participate enhanced in-class interactive learning.
Chua and Islam 25

3. Incorporating FC to PBL enabled students to have positive learning attributes

including (a) to evolve their personalized innovative, (b) to integrate key fun-
damental knowledge learned and applied them judiciously and (c) to develop
critical thinking skills, creativity, interpersonal skills, presentation and writing
skills and ability for independent learning.
4. Through PBL-FC, students have realized the importance to have sufficient time
for active learning through discussions, group interactions and ideations when
dealing with a large-scale project. Such a mind-set is particularly essential when
students grow into their roles as future engineers and potential business leaders.
5. Last but not least, students have endorsed the fact that the PBL-FC approach
has made their learning a highly enjoyable one as they are able to address
the challenges of exploring unfamiliar fields and carve out their unique project
solutions.

Based on the innovativeness of the proposed PBL-FC and its favourable

statistical outcomes, it can be inferred that coupling FC to an active learning
pedagogy such as PBL translates to amazing educational possibilities.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

ORCID iD
KJ Chua http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9293-7471

References
1. Schlemmer P and Schlemmer D. Teaching beyond the test. Minneapolis: Free Spirit
Publishing, 2008, pp. 10–11.
2. Chinnowsky P, Brown H, Szajnman A, et al. Developing knowledge landscapes through
project-based learning. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract 2006; 132: 118–125.
3. Johnson PA. Project-based, cooperative learning in the engineering classroom. J Prof
Issues Eng Educ Pract 1999; 125: 8–11.
4. Padmanadhan G and Katti D. Using community-based projects in civil engineering
capstone courses. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract 2002; 125: 12–18.
5. Palmer S and Hall W. An evaluation of a project-based learning initiative in engineering
education. Eur J Eng Educ 2011; 36: 357–365.
6. Pierce R and Jeremy F. Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom”
model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ 2012; 76: 196.
26 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 0(0)

7. Frank ML and Elata D. Implementing the project-based learning approach in an aca-

demic engineering course. Int J Technol Des Educ 2003; 13: 273–288.
8. Helle L, Tynjala P and Olkinuora E. Project-based learning in post-secondary education
– theory, practice and rubber sling shots. High Educ 2006; 51: 287–314.
9. Blumenfeld PC, Soloway E, Marx RW, et al. Motivating project-based learning: sus-
taining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychol 1991; 26: 369–398.
10. Johnson DW and Johnson RT. Cooperation and competition, theory and research. Edina
MN: Interaction Book Company, 1989, pp. 10–15.
11. Mok HN. Teaching tip: the flipped classroom. J Inf Syst Educ 2014; 25: 7–11.
12. Lewis CE, Chen DC and Relan A. Implementation of a flipped classroom approach to
promote active learning in the third-year surgery clerkship. Am J Surg 2018;
215: 298–303.
13. Chen KS, Monrouxe L, Lu YH, et al. Academic outcomes of flipped classroom learn-
ing: a meta-analysis. Med Educ 2018; 52: 910–924.
14. Mason GS, Shuman TR and Cook KE. Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted
classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE
Trans Educ 2013; 56: 430–435.
15. Yan J, Li L, Yin J, et al. A comparison of flipped and traditional classroom learning: a
case study in mechanical engineering. Int J Eng Educ 2018; 34: 1876–1887.
16. Souza MJD and Rodrigues P. Investigating the effectiveness of the flipped classroom in
an introductory programming course. New Educ Rev 2015; 40: 129–139.
17. O’Flaherty J and Phillips C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scop-
ing review. Internet High Educ 2015; 25: 85–95.
18. McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, et al. The flipped classroom: a course redesign to
foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med 2014;
89: 236–243.
19. Bergmann J and Sams A. Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class
every day. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education,
2012, pp. 19–34.
20. Chua KJ. A comparative study on first-time and experienced project-based learning
students in an engineering design module. Eur J Eng Educ 2014; 39: 556–572.
21. Gibson IS. From solo-run to mainstream thinking: project-based learning in engineer-
ing design. Eur J Eng Educ 2003; 28: 331–337.
22. Mills JE and Treagus DF. Engineering education – is problem based or project-based
learning the answer? Australas J Eng Educ 2003; 11: 2–16.
23. Brush T and Saye J. The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on
student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. Interdiscip J Probl Based
Learn 2008; 2: 21–56.
24. Krajcik JS, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, et al. Inquiry in project-based science class-
rooms: initial attempts by middle school students. J Learn Sci 1998; 7: 313–350.
25. Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ
Psychol Rev 2004; 16: 235–266.
26. Grant MM. Getting a grip on project-based learning: theory, cases and recommenda-
tions. Meridian Middle Sch Comput Technol J 2002; 5: 83.
27. Land SM and Greene BA. Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: a quali-
tative study of resource integration. Educ Technol Res Dev 2000; 48: 45–66.
Chua and Islam 27

28. Kurzel F and Rath M. Project based learning and learning environments. Issues Inf Sci
Inf Technol 2007; 4: 503–511.
29. Sumarni W. The strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of project based
learning: a review. Int J Sci Res 2014; 4: 478–484.
30. Louise JT. Instructor expectations in a project-based undergraduate mechanical
engineering classroom. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, USA, 2003,
pp. 51–53.
31. Gijbels D, Dochy F, Van den Bossche P, et al. Effects of problem-based learning:
a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Rev Educ Res 2005; 75: 27–61.
32. McLaughlin JE, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, et al. Pharmacy student engagement, per-
formance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. Am J Pharm Educ 2013;
77: 196.
33. Critz CM and Knight D. Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education.
Nurse Educ 2013; 38: 210–213.
34. Strayer JF. How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation
and task orientation. Learn Environ Res 2012; 15: 171–193.
35. Ferreri SP and Shanna KO. Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group
learning course. Am J Pharm Educ 2013; 77: 13.
36. Krajcik J, McNeill KL and Reiser BJ. Learning-goals-driven design model: developing
curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based
pedagogy. Sci Educ 2008; 92: 1–32.
37. Bell S. Project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. Clear House
2010; 83: 39–43.
38. Shih WL and Tsai CY. Students’ perception of a flipped classroom approach to facil-
itating online project-based learning in marketing research courses. Australas J Educ
Technol 2017; 33: 32–49.
39. He L and Li JH. Promoting students’ deep learning. J Comput Teach Learn 2005;
05: 29–30.