Back to the New Normal in Engineering Education towards Student-Centered Learning: Remote? In Person? Hybrid?

Abstract

Academic institutions are back to normal, but what about students? What were the cultural and lifestyle changes and impacts due to the remote mode of learning? Classes in Saudi universities in the pre-pandemic time were predominantly 100% face to face. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the education sector moved to 100% online and then went through hybrid mode (a mixture of face to face and remote) until the return to the old normal, i.e., 100% in person. Students in the post-pandemic period are wondering “Why are we coming to campus? What is the value in this teaching and learning experience where we have to commute daily?” This research addresses students’ concerns and questions, and it addresses the following questions: to what extent do they prefer learning remotely? In person? Hybrid? Observations and discussions preceded the design of the research instruments. A questionnaire survey that consists of closed-ended and open-ended questions was distributed and received responses from 74 engineering students, at the Qassim University, who were in the last three semesters of their studies and who went through the three modes of learning. To complement the quantitative research and to achieve a better understanding of matters that were revealed through the survey, the results of the analysis were shared through three focus group sessions with students and faculty members. The findings from this mixed methods approach revealed that the hybrid mode of learning is gaining significant preference among students and partial support from the teaching staff. On the other hand, unfavorable perceptions were expressed towards both going back to the old normal or the transition to a completely remote mode of learning.

1. Background

1.1. Perceptions towards the Remote Mode of Learning

The outbreak and spread of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 through 2021 brought unprecedented disruptions to the education system and industry [1]. Schooling moved to various forms of remote learning; nonetheless, the crisis-response migration to remote education lacked a proper planning, design, and development of online instructional programs [2]. The non-structured and non-standardized methods, in addition to the low-interactivity and technical limitations, have hampered the effectiveness of remote education [3]. The challenges faced by the students impacted their learning experiences and engagement. Students with no previous exposure and experience with online learning faced a set of challenges including logistical challenges such as an inadequate home, working space/environment, and the unavailability of necessary items such as a desk [4].

It is worth mentioning that the learning loss during the academic years of 2019/2020 through 2020/2021 was considerable. Students’ knowledge, skills, and competence significantly declined [5,6,7,8,9,10]. The capacity of the remote learning setup was very low to substitute the in-person mode of learning [5], which led to large learning losses even in countries with an advanced digital infrastructure and well digitally skilled teaching staff. Teachers observed the effectiveness of instruction decline, and students lost ground [6] where the gained knowledge accumulation, skills, and competence were significantly less than that to be achieved in a pre-pandemic school year. Work-integrated learning, co-op, and field experiences that are of great importance to engineering students did not take place. Moreover, the graduation requirements may have been lessened [1]. The findings of an interagency survey conducted by [11] show that the lack of participatory and experimental training posed a hindrance to the acquisition not only of practical abilities but also of socio-emotional skills such as problem solving. Students learn better in physical classrooms due to collaborative activities [12]. The findings of [7] indicate that students spent less time learning remotely. This resulted in a considerable learning loss that is equivalent to one-fifth of a school year [8]. In a meta-analysis of 42 studies across 15 countries that was carried out by [9] to assess the magnitude of learning deficits during the pandemic, they found a substantial overall learning deficit. The results of [10]’s study on the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on learning indicate that a learning loss equivalent to the learning during a third of a school year was brought on, assuming the distance learning policy adopted by the Mexican government is entirely effective.

Examining students’ experiences in an American university, [13] found that remote instruction generated distractions which hindered the students’ ability to fully comprehend course material. Lessons learnt from three universities in Spain and Peru during the online teaching period are related to students’ lesser motivation and engagement according to [14], where interactions in online learning have a positive impact and lead to learners’ higher level of achievement [15,16]. The engineering students at Lund University, Sweden, expressed a lower satisfaction with their online courses and found it harder to understand the expectations and standards of work [17].

The study of [18] surveyed the opinions of undergraduate students at an Indian University and found that students learn better in physical classrooms due to collaborative activities that are difficult to replicate on an online platform. As a consequence of the prolonged use of digital tools, psychological disorders and a drop in students’ academic performance was observed in a study on students from Jordan universities [19]. Students at the UAE university [20] expressed their negative perception towards virtual classrooms that have proven effectiveness, but students may resort to this mode to continue addressing their learning needs.

This is also the case at Saudi universities. Students faced challenges during remote learning amid COVID-19 including content perception, course delivery, and technology tools, as well as behavioral challenges as highlighted by [21,22]. However, the conclusions of [23], who investigated students’ preferences and perceptions towards offline and online learning post-COVID-19 lockdown at a Saudi University, contradict with the above findings. The findings of [23] revealed that a significant majority of students had a fear of catching the coronavirus and wished to pursue online classes as they faced time management issues, depression, and tiredness in the face-to-face mode of learning. The results of [24]’s study, which analyzed the move to emergency remote teaching at the School of Telecommunication Engineering in Madrid, show an increase in students’ academic performance in emergency remote teaching. A survey was carried out in Sri Lanka by [25] to identify students’ perceptions of engaging in activities during the remote and hybrid modes of learning. The results of this study illustrate a significant student engagement in learning. However, there exists a pessimistic perception towards the transition to a completely online setting.

1.2. Perceptions towards the Hybrid Mode of Learning

The differences experienced by students who attended an in-person instruction and those who participated in a remote instruction were examined by [13]. This study revealed that the remote instruction generated distractions which hindered the students’ ability to fully comprehend the course material. On the other hand, the other group experienced less distractions, which made it easier to pay attention, and they were delighted to be engaged with people. By investigating users’ experiences and challenges that the online mode of education brings, ref. [26] found that both learners and teachers were predominantly in favor of regular classes that are better in terms of efficiency, interaction, and overall understanding. The study of [27] concluded by recognizing that shifting completely to online mode may not be possible in agricultural education systems and a hybrid mode may be considered in designing the curriculum for the new normal. The results of a survey of Engineering and Computer Science Students’ perceptions and attitudes as well as challenges related to changes in teaching formats during the pandemic and students’ perceptions about the future of teaching in a post COVID-19 environment that was conducted by [28] show that the majority of all the students in the study indicated that the future teaching format in universities will be mostly hybrid. The authors concluded with a recommendation that universities should consider incorporating hybrid modes of teaching in the future. One of the main findings of [29] is that the hybrid approach is what students have come to expect, where the future of a hybrid university will make it a more student-centered university.

The previous studies were conducted with the aim of knowing the students’ perceptions on the various modes of learning in different regions worldwide. Issues that were insufficiently investigated in previous studies are the perceptions of engineering students towards the modes of learning when their institutions decided to go back to normal. The particularity of the region and the targeted population where the current research was conducted have not yet been sufficiently surveyed. It is worth noting that the study program where this research was conducted serves an extended geographic region with widely scattered small urban centers and villages. Students daily commute long distances that reach, in many cases, about 150 km.

This research addresses students’ concerns and questions after coming back to the normal mode of learning, and it addresses the following questions: to what extent do they prefer studying remotely? In person? Hybrid? What are the students’ expectations towards the new normal? By tackling this issue, the current research makes a new scientific contribution that is of added value and that is a contribution to knowledge in the field. The contents of this research article consist of a background on the various types of modes of learning to understand the present landscape of the research topic and is concluded by stating the importance and scientific contribution of this research. The main elements of the research methodology are outlined. A systematic analysis of the collected data is carried out, and the acquired research findings are explained and discussed, and based on that, a conclusion and recommendations are drafted.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Research Design

The mixed methods approach was followed to address the students’ concerns and questions after coming back to the old normal, face-to-face mode of learning and to obtain responses to the following research questions: To what extent do they prefer studying remotely? In person? Hybrid? What are the students’ expectations towards the new normal? Observations and discussions preceded the design of the research instruments. A structured questionnaire was developed, and the collected data were analyzed and shared through three focus group sessions with students and faculty members.

The structured questionnaire comprised two types of questions: closed-ended, where the respondent has several options from which to choose, and open-ended questions, where the respondent replies in his own words without being constrained by a fixed set of possible responses [30]. The pre-defined domains, according to which the structured questionnaire was to be developed, will yield responses according to the pre-established categories. This will produce uniform data and subsequently a well-organized data analysis [31]. The closed-ended questions intended to provide primarily quantitative data where the participant had the choice to choose an answer from a list of options. To capture respondents’ experiences and perspectives and to complement the quantitative data, a set of open-ended questions were included.

2.2. Preparation of the Questionnaire Survey

The components of the questionnaire were tailored to respond to students’ concerns and questions that arose when they came back to the old normal, i.e., in-person classes on a 100% basis. The design of a primary data collection should be preceded by reviewing relevant literature [32]. An extensive literature review of previous studies on the subject matter was carried out so that this research work could be of added value to the subject. It has been a valuable instrument to synthesize the existing knowledge on a research topic and to validate the proposed domains of the study and the questionnaire outlines [33]. The main domains were pre-established, and the questionnaire was designed with two styles of questions: a pre-determined fixed list of answer options with a five-scale Likert format and open-ended questions to capture respondents’ experiences and perspectives to compliment the quantitative data.

2.3. Focus Group Discussions

A benefit of focus group sessions is to provide a platform for participants’ interactions and encouragement to talk about a wider range of experiences and opinions. It has become a popular technique for gathering qualitative data across a wide range of academic and applied research areas [34]. Findings from a survey, as a primary method, can be combined with focus-group discussions to assist in interpreting the survey’s results [34]. These discussions will enhance the findings and provide researchers the opportunity to differentiate consistent themes from extreme views [35].

Taking into consideration the presence of both the targeted participants and researchers, focus group sessions were a good choice to achieve a better understanding of issues that were uncovered through the survey. The results of the analysis were shared through three separate focus group discussions, two with students and one with faculty members, and each lasted up to an hour. Developing the focus group discussion guide was based on the pre-established domains and the respective survey results. The focus group participants were briefed on the research concept and phases, and then sessions continued discussing the survey results. Notes were taken, and written comments and suggestions were collected and processed. Brainstorming provided a better understanding of students’ perceptions. Faculty members are now more aware of issues facing students throughout the three modes of learnings, which will be vital in bridging the gaps in the education process. This research tool was instrumental in enhancing and complementing the data collected through the questionnaire survey. The data were interpreted to validate the results, complement the findings, and draw conclusions and recommendations.

2.4. Research Domains

The developed questionnaire survey included three key domains. The first domain of the survey aimed to capture the students’ perceptions and preferences towards the modes of learning and had 3 pre-determined fixed lists of answer options (

Table 1. The main research domains and the pre-determined fixed lists of answer options.

Domain		Pre-Determined Fixed Lists of Answer Options
The preferable studying mode for students regardless of the nature of the course		• I prefer studying in person regardless of the course type. • I prefer studying remotely regardless of the course type. • I prefer studying hybrid for some courses and remotely for others.
Students’ perceptions and preferences towards the in-person studying mode	Interaction, knowledge attainment, and socializing with colleagues	• I understand through the actual presence more. • Ease of asking questions and discussion with the professor. • Discussing with colleagues and getting help from them. • University life and interaction with professors and colleagues. • I feel that my educational attainment is better in face-to-face attendance. • Use the spare time between lectures to work with colleagues. • Gain social skills by communicating and interacting with colleagues and professors.
	Digital infrastructure and students’ readiness	• I am worried about dealing with new technologies for distance learning. • Difficult interfaces in the distance education system. • Course content is not well designed for distance education. • Difficulty in communicating information remotely by the professor. • I can’t solve technical problems that hinder uploading assignments and exam answers remotely. • I am afraid that the answer to my remote exams will not reach the professor without my knowledge. • Weak internet.
	Learning environment and mental disorders	• I feel stressed when studying remotely. • Boredom and mental wandering during remote lecture. • I do not feel the importance of being in the lecture remotely, especially when there is no monitoring of absence. • I don’t have a quiet place to study at home. • I feel isolated while studying remotely. • University life is absent in remote education.
Students’ perceptions towards the remote studying mode		• Get a better understanding of distance learning. • I gained the skill to rely on myself more in distance education. • Love dealing with technology and acquiring new digital skills. • Distance learning is the trend of future education and learning. • In distance education, I got rid of my shyness to participate in questions and discussion. • I have enough time to learn and self-rehabilitate. • Save time, I no longer need to be prepared and go daily to university. • I don’t need to get up early to go to college anymore. • Can prove attendance at the lecture and then get busy with other things. • I can use the recording of the lecture to attend at a later time. • I can collaborate with colleagues in solving exams and exchange answers.

) for respondents to choose from and was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree).

The design of the second domain aimed to explore students’ perceptions and preferences towards the in-person studying mode through three sub-domains.

The first sub-domain of questions aimed to recognize how interactions, knowledge attainment, and socializing orient the students’ perceptions and preferences towards the in-person studying mode. This section had 7 pre-determined fixed lists of answer options (Table 1) for respondents to choose from and was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree).

The second sub-domain of questions aimed to recognize how the digital infrastructure and students’ readiness orient the students’ perceptions and preferences towards the in-person studying mode. This section had 7 pre-determined fixed lists of answer options (Table 1) for respondents to choose from and was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree).

The third sub-domain of questions aimed to recognize how the learning environment and mental disorders orient the students’ perceptions and preferences towards the in-person studying mode. This section had 6 pre-determined fixed lists of answer options (Table 1) for respondents to choose from and was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree).

The design of the third domain aimed to explore students’ perceptions towards the remote studying mode. This domain had 11 pre-determined fixed lists of answer options (Table 1) for respondents to choose from and was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree).

To gain a deeper understanding of students’ perspectives on the different modes of learning and how far that is linked to the type of courses, the design of the fourth domain of questions was based on open-ended questions. The survey’s open-ended questions focused on capturing the students’ perceptions and preferences towards studying main tracks in engineering, namely, university requirements (cultural and linguistic courses), basic courses in science and mathematics, laboratory courses, analysis courses, design courses, and construction engineering and project engineering management courses. The question provided three options to students (in person/remotely/hybrid), with corresponding spaces for students to justify their choices in detail.

For the purpose of ensuring the clarity and functionality of the survey questions, a questionnaire pilot test was conducted with two academics in an engineering college, four students from different study levels of those who experienced the multi-mode learning, and two fresh graduates in civil engineering. Then, the questionnaire was revised to incorporate the feedback from the sample.

2.5. Data Collection

Population, sampling, and survey dissemination. The research domains and questions were inserted in a template with the pre-determined fixed lists of answer options and were communicated to the participants. To protect the participants’ interests, it was stated in the cover letter that anonymity and confidentiality of the participants will be assured thoroughly. It was outlined that the questionnaire does not require participants to provide any personal information; their participation will be used for research purposes only and will be treated in strict confidence; and information gathered will not be analyzed individually but as a group.

The enrollment rate in the civil engineering program at the Qassim University, Unaizah, where this research was conducted is to a certain extent moderate. The program serves an extended geographic region with widely scattered small urban centers and villages. The target population for this survey was about 100 undergraduate students who had the chance to experience a multi-mode method of learning, where from the in-person mode, they moved, during the pandemic, to online on a 100% basis and then went through a hybrid mode until the return to the old normal. The target population was limited to students at the 10th, 9th, 8th, and 7th level of their study.

Considering that the study population was homogeneous, the approach for a less variable population was to use the entire population as a sample, as suggested by [36]. As the researchers are faculty members involved in teaching higher levels of the study program, and for reasons of convenience, a purposeful sampling method was utilized as is the most commonly used sampling method in researching students’ perceptions, where students who meet the inclusion criteria are recruited. In the purposive sampling, respondents are often selected because they are at the right place at the right time [37]. Moreover, the researchers referred to published tables, as suggested by both [36,38]. These tables provide the sample size for a given combination of precisions, confidence levels, and variability. For a population of 100, a 95% desirable confidence level, a ±5% precision, the sample size from the tables is 81 and 67 for ±7% precisions. Based on these, we moved further and calculated the sample size utilizing the equation used by [36,38] but with a 95% desirable confidence level and ±6% precision, n = N/[1 + N(e)2], where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision. Therefore, n = 100/[1 + 100 (0.06)2] = 73.5~74, which is consistent with the responses gathered, N = 74 responses, from students (40 at the 10th level of their study, 8 at the 9th, 10 at the 8th, and 16 at the 7th).

Reliability and validity of the collected data. The 74 responses were analyzed by the mean and STDs which are two checking tools that recognize the dissimilarities in respondents’ attitudes. The Cronbach’s alpha, as is widely used in science education, should be computed to represent the internal consistency of an instrument [39]. Therefore, alphas were computed for the survey statements so as to verify the validity of the responses to the questionnaire. The average alphas according to the survey domains are the following:

• The preferable studying mode for students regardless of the nature of the course: 0.71;
• Students’ perceptions and preferences towards the in-person mode:

  -

  Interaction, knowledge attainment, and socializing with colleagues: 0.81;

  -

  Digital infrastructure and students’ readiness: 0.76;

  -

  Learning environment and mental disorder: 0.80;

• Students’ perceptions towards the remote studying mode: 0.77.

These are good, as highlighted by [39].

The sample characteristics. The sample varied in terms of level of study; 42% of the participants were in level eight and went through university requirements courses, basic courses in science and mathematics, laboratory courses, analysis, and design courses. A good percentage of the respondents (58%) were in the ninth and tenth level. In addition to the previous courses, the latter group were studying construction engineering and project engineering management courses during the survey. Thus, the sample included students who were on board before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The diversity of students who went through the multi-mode method of university life is expected to provide a good sample to support the aim of this research.

3. Analysis, Findings, and Discussion

The outbreak and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 brought unprecedented disruptions to education systems. It has had and continues to have devastating effects on the education industry. Schooling moved to various forms of remote learning. The current research aims to investigate students’ concerns and questions after coming back to the old normal mode of learning, and it addresses the following questions: what are the students’ expectations towards the new normal? Do they prefer studying remotely? In person? Hybrid?

Based on the early-labelled domains and sub-domains, the framework of analysis was constructed. The early labelling of themes simplifies the integration of the data for analyses, interpretations, and result presentations [35]. To carry out the data analysis, the first step was to examine the contents of the responses that were in Arabic and then to retrieve and tabulate the participants’ responses according to the pre-established themes. The authors then translated the responses precisely into English. The quantitative data from the questionnaire survey was statistically analyzed using MS Excel and presented graphically, as proposed by [40], so that it may be feasible or even desirable to present some of the results quantitatively using tables and figures. The quantitative and qualitative data collected from the open-ended questions was merged during the analysis and interpretation. The findings from the quantitative data were integrated and supported by the findings from qualitative data, enabling researchers and readers to make sense of the research work in its entirety [41]. Key findings that emerged from the analysis were shared with students and faculty members through three focus group sessions. Two sessions took place with the participation of 9 and 10 students, respectively. A single session was held in between with the participation of eight faculty members, during which the researchers shared the survey findings as well as the output of the first group discussions with students. The results from the survey along with the outputs of the previous two sessions were shared in a brainstorming session with the second group of students who were at their last level of study. The data were interpreted to validate the results, to complement the findings, to obtain an answer to the research question, and to draw conclusions and recommendations.

The population of this study had started studying some courses in person before the outbreak and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and completed these courses remotely. They had also studied remotely for full semesters during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the lockdown, and they had recently returned to studying in person at a rate of almost 100%. The students’ experiences, challenges, and lessons learned from these multi-mode methods of schooling were to be traced. To make it easier to compare the perspectives and preferences of students, diverging stacked bar charts were used to show the data. They provide an effective way to communicate the summaries of data collected with Likert scales compared to any of the other charts [42]. The diverging stacked bar chart shows the percentages of the respondents who agree with the statement to the right of the zero line, while the percentages who disagree are shown to the left. The total percent to the right or the left of the zero line is the one of interest, where the primary comparisons do have a common baseline of zero.

3.1. Students’ Perception and Preferences towards Modes of Learning

3.1.1. Domain 1: Preferable Studying Mode for Students

A total of 74 students responded to the question “what is your preferable studying mode?”. Each student answered one of the five levels of agreement or disagreement for the three pre-determined options (In person? Remotely? Hybrid?) regardless of the nature of the course. Agreement was placed on the right and disagreement on the left, with a neutral split evenly between the two sides.

The panel of the plot shows a breakdown of the respondents into categories defined by the options listed in its right strip label. Figure 1 shows that a very large percentage of students, 90 percent, prefer the hybrid mode of studying (part remotely and part in person). This result supports [43]’s findings on the environmental engineering students’ unfavorable perceptions about learning in online environments compared to the pre-COVID-19 hybrid delivery. Moreover, another strong message from this graph is that a large percentage (70%) of students prefer not to study remotely in full regardless of the course type, which is in line with [25]’s findings. This reflects the students’ experiences and suffering during the lockdown and confirms [13]’s findings that remote instruction generates distractions which hinders the students’ ability to fully comprehend the course material. Students learned not to sacrifice their learning as well as the college atmosphere, as argued by [20] that students may resort to virtual classes not because of its proven effectiveness but because of the necessity to continue addressing their learning needs. At the same time, they would be happy not to commute daily to the university so as to cut down on the expenses of travelling and time wasted. During the focus group discussions, the researchers inquired about the reasons behind the high percentage of students’ preference to the hybrid mode of learning. The students were supportive of this result and argued that it is due to the freedom given to the student to choose the appropriate time and course. Moreover, students pointed out that the hybrid mode of learning enables them to plan for the efficient utilization of time, before, during, and after lectures. They also reported their experiences using the web during lectures to search for any new terms or ideas. The teaching staff are in favor of going hybrid but for limited contents of some courses, where any deficiencies can be overcome during the in-person sessions. Therefore, the hybrid mode of studying seems to be the most favorable option to students which lowers the cost of education without compromising its quality.

3.1.2. Domain 2: Students’ Perceptions and Preferences towards the In-Person Studying Mode

The objective of this domain was to explore students’ perceptions and preferences towards the in-person studying mode through three sub-domains. The first one aimed to recognize students’ insights on interactions, knowledge attainment, and socializing that accompany the in-person studying mode. The second sub-domain aimed to recognize the students’ views on digital infrastructure and readiness constraints that may drive students to prefer the in-person studying mode. The third sub-domain investigates how the learning environment and mental disorders affect students’ preferences towards the in-person studying mode.

Sub-Domain 2.1. How Interaction, Knowledge Attainment, and Socializing Orient Students’ Preferences towards the In-Person Studying Mode

Figure 2 shows that a very large percentage of students, about 90 to 95 percent, prefer the in-person mode of studying because they better understand through physical presence; they can easily discuss and ask their instructors questions and get help from colleagues. This is related to the substantial number of challenges that students faced during the remote mode of learning and confirms [3]’s findings on Finnish and Indian students. Meanwhile, 92% of the students admitted to the fact that they gain social skills by communicating and interacting with colleagues and professors, which is consistent with [26]’s findings where learners and teachers were predominantly in favor of regular classes as most of them felt that regular classes were better in terms of efficiency, interactions, and overall understanding. However, only 81% of the students feel that their educational attainment is better in face-to-face attendance, and a good percentage (34%) disagrees with the statement that they use the spare time between lectures to work with colleagues. This is because of the limited time, as quoted by students during the focus group discussions. They would rather use the spare time in socializing and general discussions. The students also stated that their close colleagues with whom they used to work jointly may have selected different courses, so there are no common subjects to work in. The faculty members quoted that the reason behind that may be the shortage of some educational facilities that attract students to sit and work jointly, a statement that students are in agreement with, too.

Sub-Domain 2.2. How Digital Infrastructure and Students’ Readiness Orient Students’ Preferences towards the In-Person Studying Mode

Figure 3 shows that 81% of the respondents are not worried about dealing with new technologies used for distance learning, and 76% have no difficulties in interfaces in the distance education system. It is interesting to read that 55% of the respondents agreed that course content is not well designed for distance education. This confirms what [20] concluded in their study that instructors and designers of virtual classroom courses need to lead and design modules to maximize the use of the virtual classroom and minimize any disadvantages such as a lack of face-to-face communication. Students also noticed that there are weaknesses in teaching methods and difficulties in communicating information remotely by instructors, which is in line with a major finding of [44] that applying innovative teaching methods minimizes the challenges that are faced in distance learning environments. The students during the focus group discussions shared and confirmed their concerns about the unsuitability of the lectures’ contents and presentation for remote learning. This is coupled with difficulties in communicating and lecturing online by some teaching staff, as reported by students. The faculty members have their interpretation and reasoning. They refer to the sudden move to distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic that did not enable them to prepare interactive materials and receive adequate training in teaching methods using modern educational methods and techniques, but they confirmed that they provided sufficient tools for students to communicate with, for questions and discussions. A total of 66% of the respondents disagree with the statement “I can’t solve technical problems that hinder uploading assignments and exam answers remotely”. However, 71% of the respondents were afraid that the answers to their remote exams may not reach the professor without knowing it, though students were given the chance to submit assignments using alternative channels, as reported by faculty members during the focus group discussions. A good number of the students (62%) prefer the in-person studying mode due to their weak internet connectivity.

Sub-Domain 2.3. How the Learning Environment and Mental Disorders Orient Students’ Preferences towards the In-Person Studying Mode

Figure 4 shows that while 76% of the respondents do not feel stressed during the remote studying mode, 79% feel boredom and mental wandering at the time of studying remotely. This is in line with [3,45]’s findings where less social interaction with other students leads to depression, anxiety, and stress. While 62% of the respondents agreed that university life is absent in remote education, only 47% feel isolated. The additional students’ insights on the reasons for boredom is the inability of the course instructor to attract the students’ attention. Students also demanded that interactive techniques must be used to ensure student participation. In sharing this statement with faculty members during the focus group discussions, they admitted the necessity to receive adequate training that will enable them to prepare teaching and learning materials in a professional and interactive manner that attracts the students’ attention. Students also showed a commitment to attending lectures, while only 34% of the respondents did not. In terms of the availability of space, 80% of the respondents do not agree with the statement “I do not have a quiet place to study at home”, and only 20% expressed difficulties in having a quiet place to study at home. This is consistent with [22]’s findings where students realized that their homes were not suitable for learning, which is in line with [4] who explored Aston University’s Bioscience students’ experiences with online learning, where students reported an inadequate home working space and learning environment.

3.1.3. Domain 3: Students’ Perceptions towards the Remote Studying Mode

Figure 5 shows that 64% of the respondents do not achieve a better understanding with distance learning, which is in line with [43]’s results that an online synchronous delivery approach of environmental engineering does not maintain the same level of students’ performance as in the hybrid delivery, but is in contrast with [23]’s findings, where the majority of students were more satisfied and comfortable in gaining knowledge and learning with online classes, as they also gain higher scores in exams. However, 72% of the respondents understand that remote learning is the future trend of education and learning; 78% love dealing with technology and acquiring new digital skills, and 71% feel that they gained the skill to rely on themselves. And 44% of the respondents eliminated their shyness to participate in questions and discussions.

A very large percentage of the respondents (91%) are in favor of remote learning due to the saved time by cutting time required to prepare and go to university every day. This agrees with [45]’s findings which suggest that online education leads to several benefits for students, such as better time management, higher lecture attendances, flexibility, and discipline in their studies. Students do not need to get up early to go to college anymore, a statement to which 85% of the respondents agreed with. Relying on recorded lectures to be seen at any time obtained the highest agreement (96%), which supports the findings of [27], though the findings of [46] indicate that most respondents reported that attending live online lectures was more helpful than watching pre-recorded lectures. The students in the focus group discussions disclosed that their preference for the remote studying mode is linked to the time they save by not commuting daily to the college. But they admitted that educational attainment is incomparable to the face-to-face mode. The participants agreed with and appealed for recorded lectures so that they have the chance to refer to them whenever needed. The faculty members noticed a deterioration in students’ attainment in terms of knowledge and skills during the 100% remote learning.

3.2. Students’ Preferences of Studying Modes according to the Course Type

The survey included responses to an open-ended question on how students prefer studying the following groups of courses (Figure 6): university requirement courses, basic courses in science and mathematics, laboratory courses, analysis courses, design courses, and construction engineering and project engineering management courses. The question provided three options to the students (in person/remotely/hybrid), with corresponding spaces for students to justify their choices in detail.

The majority (74%) of the respondents prefer to study university requirement courses remotely. In the focus group sessions, students went further, expressing their preference to be on a 100% basis. They justify their choice by stating that most of these courses are theoretical and easy to understand without the need for discussions with instructors and interactions with peers. Students argued that they will save time that can be useful to study other courses. A total of 58% of the respondents prefer to study basic courses in science and mathematics in person. They consider that these courses will require focus and discussions with instructors face to face for a deeper understanding.

Almost all the students (96% of the respondents) prefer to study laboratory courses in person to run experiments by themselves instead of virtual laboratory teaching. Students stated that they learn much better by doing. The impact on the transition from in person to remote in 2020, and to a hybrid format in 2021, was explored by [47], who found that active learning events can be adapted to accommodate learners in different settings, while physical construction and testing aspects are logistically better suited for in person events. The majority (77%) of the respondents prefer the analysis courses to be studied in person to interact and discuss with the instructors, as the shift to online education has caused a communication deterioration between students and teachers [45]. Students consider the analysis courses as laying the foundation in their specialty and require gaining a deeper understanding of the courses content. A total of 18% of the respondents prefer some contents to be delivered online and the rest in person, while only 5% would like to have it completely online. Similarly, 61% of the respondents prefer to study design courses in person for more focus and discussions with the instructors, and 24% would prefer these to be hybrid, especially for some contents. The students’ survey also revealed that 41% of the students are willing to choose in-person classes for studying construction engineering and management courses, while 38% prefer the hybrid mode. They think that it would be better for selected subjects to be delivered remotely and others in person. The type of the course affected the choice for students, and this is in line with [48]’s conclusion that students were comfortable with the e-learning educational system, but its effectiveness is dependent on the course type and requirements. The faculty members emphasized that the infrastructure for remote learning is available and ready to be benefited from, as it is continuously under development so that technical issues are minimized, and the educational material be presented interactively. The teaching staff are in favor of going hybrid but for limited contents of some courses, and this will benefit the faculty and students by keeping them aware of this mode of learning. They agreed that institutions must benefit from the educational experiences that were gained during COVID-19 and to be prepared for any emergent disruptions.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The education industry underwent profound, fascinating changes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic disruption to its partial recovery. The pandemic’s consequences yielded challenges to education systems that are seen as multifaceted disruptions including economical, technological, as well as delivery modes of learning. Educational institutions are strongly considering engaging students in various modes of learning given current issues, such as low enrolments along with concerns over energy supplies, but moreover, they are moving with the wave of the transition to technology-driven instruction. On the other hand, students have been welcoming this transition to escape daily commuting and to have gains in terms of time and lower expenses, as stated by [1].

In the pre-pandemic time, the mode of learning in Saudi Arabia was predominantly 100% face to face. During the pandemic, the whole education sector’s workforce and learners moved to 100% online, then went through a hybrid mode, until the return to the old normal, i.e., to 100% in person. Students in the post-pandemic period are wondering the following: “Why are we coming to campus? What is the value in this teaching and learning experience where we have to struggle and commute daily?”

The main objective of this study was to explore students’ concerns and questions after coming back to the old normal mode of learning, and to address the following questions: What are the students’ expectations towards the new normal? Do they prefer studying remotely? In person? Hybrid? The research methodology and data collection were outlined to respond sufficiently to the research questions that will reasonably realize the main objective of this study.

This study explored engineering students’ perceptions and preferences towards modes of learning. The majority of the respondents to the questionnaire survey prefer the mixed mode of studying, namely, hybrid. Students understand better through physical presence where they can easily ask questions and discuss with their instructors and get help from colleagues through the in-person part of the hybrid mode. Meanwhile, students admitted to the fact that they gain social skills by communicating and interacting with others. The experiences and suffering of learners and the substantial number of challenges that students faced during the lockdown were voiced in this study. A good percentage of the respondents would not like to fully go back to the remote mode of studying regardless of the course type, which is consistent with the findings of relevant studies in engineering education [3,13,25,26,43]. This study revealed that learners, as they are of Gen-Z, have no difficulties dealing with new technologies and interfaces used in remote learning; however, a good percentage noticed that course content is not well designed for online learning, and there are weaknesses in teaching methods and difficulties in communicating information remotely by instructors. On the other hand, students would be happy not to commute daily to the university so as to minimize the expenses of travelling and time wasted, but not at the expense of their learning and college atmosphere, as also concluded by [20,44], though they feel boredom and not well mentally. Taking into consideration the region of this study, and the Saudi social setup, most of the students do not feel isolated and have no issues related to the availability of space to study at home.

The current research revealed that the type of course has its impact on the choice of the learner. Almost all respondents are in favor of studying laboratory courses in person, and more than a half would prefer to attend basic course lectures in science and mathematics in person where focus and discussions with the instructors are needed. While a good percentage of the respondents would prefer to study university requirement courses remotely, the majority of the respondents are in favor of attending in person the analysis and design courses so as have the chance to interact and discuss face to face with the instructors. This study also revealed that learners would prefer that some selected topics should delivered remotely and others in person as in the case of construction engineering and management courses.

The education sector in Saudi Arabia invested heavily in the transition to technology-driven instruction. The investment in digital infrastructure that was maximized during the lockdown should continue to be used for remote classes, as it should be an asset for readiness to deal with any future disruptions and emergency situations. Teaching staff have received adequate training to efficiently use technological tools to deliver classes remotely. This investment should be preserved and upgraded. New teaching staff should be exposed to these experiences and receive comparable training to be ready to deal with any emergency situation.

This is not a call for a remote mode of studying on a 100% basis, nor for abandoning the face-to-face mode of learning. The students’ experiences in the past two years exposed them to diverse lessons in terms of benefits and agony. There are advantages and disadvantages for both modes of studying that appeal for benefiting from the lessons learned and considering a mixed method of learning. Higher education institutions should be prepared towards moving to a more hybrid institute so as to obtain the benefits of both modes while have the ability to respond to any future crisis and to mitigate any potential harms. Academically, the hybrid mode offers a dynamic learning experience that maximizes students’ engagement, enabling them to upskill rapidly. It also gives students the choice to learn, interact, discuss, and socialize so as to improve their physical and mental health.

Nonetheless, moving to the hybrid mode of learning will require a commitment from the education institutions towards digital transformations. There is a need for a heavy investment to strengthen the education institutions’ digital infrastructures and readiness, not only in term of equipment but also staff development. It is worth stressing that to perfectly design a hybrid learning course is time consuming. Therefore, education institutions have to invest in instructional design and plan for professional development programs to enable teaching staff to design, develop, and teach in a hybrid mode. A set of quality assurance standards, assessment methods, outcomes, and faculty/student satisfaction surveys should be adopted and periodically reviewed. There are also difficulties for both students and teaching staff in managing the study schedule, which requires a combination of the in-person and remote learning schedules. Students should be well supported by their institutions to succeed in the hybrid mode. Educators need to think and identify courses that can be delivered in a hybrid format. The study level may be a factor; students in early levels of their studies may need more face time.

Taking into consideration the pros and cons, the mixed method of learning is the solution as it becomes a sustainable student-centered learning in engineering education. The hybrid mode of learning has been and will continue to be the most remarkably built environment for teaching and learning. It is becoming an essential pillar in the education system. There is a wealth of benefits; the hybrid calendar offers more flexibility for students, and a considerable amount of time, expenses, and effort will be saved for students and families. The teacher–student bond that is adversely impacted in the remote mode of learning and the social isolation that students suffered from are to be handled through face-to-face classes. The hybrid approach is the future, and hybrid-driven instructions will make the institution a more student-centered institution.