(61g) Blending Hands-on and Online Learning: Instructional Design of a Summer Bootcamp for Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer

Blended learning has become an effective instructional approach in engineering education, offering increased flexibility to integrate theoretical instruction with hands-on experiences. This study presents the instructional design strategies of a five-week summer bootcamp aimed at reinforcing fundamental concepts in fluid mechanics and heat transfer—core topics across Mechanical, Chemical, and Biomedical Engineering curricula. The bootcamp adopted a blended format, with approximately 80% of the content delivered synchronously online and 20% conducted through in-person laboratory sessions. Central to this approach was the use of take-home laboratory kits, which enabled students to perform fluid flow (FLU) and heat exchanger (HEX) experiments at home, supplemented with in-person experiments using pilot-scale equipment thus providing a tiered experiential learning approach. The primary objective was to develop an instructional platform that effectively balances remote learning with hands-on experimentation, thereby enhancing student comprehension of key concepts in transport phenomena courses.

A key research question guiding this work was: How does the integration of take-home lab kits in a blended format impact students’ conceptual understanding of fluid mechanics and heat transfer? The bootcamp’s flexible structure allowed students to concurrently participate in internships, summer courses, or research, making it a scalable and adaptable instructional model. The course design incorporated preparatory activities, real-time online support, in-person lab supervision, and structured post-lab reflection.

The kits underwent technical refinements—including improved circuitry, sensor integration, and experimental procedures—to support reliable and meaningful data collection. The bootcamp sequence included: Week 1 for sensor configuration and orientation; Weeks 2 and 3 for online experimentation (FLU and HEX, respectively); Week 4 for lab transition and safety training; and Week 5 for in-person experimentation. The majority of participants (91%) were Mechanical Engineering students, with the remainder from Biomedical Engineering. An educational design research methodology (McKenney and Reeves, 2012) was used through instructional artifacts, such as lab manuals, e-learning resources, data analysis, and post-labs, as well as data collection methods like questionnaires and focus groups. All qualitative data obtained were analyzed using thematic analysis, while Likert-scale data was analyzed with descriptive statistics.

The first iteration of the bootcamp provided valuable insights into the challenges and successes of the blended format from both instructor and student perspectives. Students reported increased confidence in applying theoretical knowledge to practical scenarios after working with the kits. Focus group discussions underscored the value of flexibility and self-paced exploration, though some participants experienced challenges transitioning between online and in-person components—emphasizing the importance of clear scaffolding across modalities.

Overall, our findings suggest that while the blended format offers promising opportunities for experiential learning, further refinement of instructional strategies and kit architecture are needed to optimize student engagement and learning outcomes. With continued refinements to both the lab kits and instructional design, this study offers a replicable model for faculty seeking to incorporate blended, hands-on learning into their engineering courses to enhance student engagement and conceptual understanding across a range of engineering disciplines.