INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
Effectiveness of Blended/Hybrid Cad Instruction (Online + Physical  
Hands-On) In Engineering Education  
Niño Joselito D. Almario1, Ismael Kobe R. Cruz2, Arren B. Santos3, Monaliza S. Jimenez4, Romano A.  
Gabrillo5  
1,2,3Master of Science in Manufacturing Engineering Bulacan State University, City of Malolos, Bulacan,  
Philippines, 3000  
4,5Bulacan State University, City of Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines, 3000  
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1411000096  
Received: 07 December 2025; Accepted: 13 December 2025; Published: 22 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
The purpose of this research is to evaluate how blended or hybrid learning of CAD instruction serves the students  
of Manufacturing Engineering better. In engineering programs, with the acceleration of digital transformation in  
the post-pandemic era, online lectures and virtual demonstrations are increasingly combined with face-to-face  
laboratory activities to support design-based learning. This study used a descriptive comparative research  
approach and compared two groups: students who were enrolled purely in face-to-face CAD classes versus those  
enrolled in hybrid/blended classes. Academic statistics regarding student engagement, motivation, and  
satisfaction were collected using measurements of student performance combined with a student engagement  
survey. Hybrid learners performed marginally better than traditional learners on their course assessments and  
more significantly on final assessments and design projects. Student engagement measurements were  
consistently greater among hybrid students when compared with traditional students, indicating that the hybrid  
learning model, which integrates multimedia and flexible instructional approaches into the learning environment,  
enhances motivational and participatory aspects of learning. Feedback from surveys corroborates the impact of  
digital resources on students' ability to learn at their own pace and also notes issues related to internet  
connectivity and software limitations. Results provide strong support for the implementation of hybrid  
instructional formats in skills-based engineering courses (CAD). Hybrid instructional formats were noted to  
enhance cognitive and affective (motivational) learning outcomes of CAD.  
Keywords - Blended learning, CAD instruction, Engineering education, Hybrid learning, Student engagement  
INTRODUCTION  
The rapid digital transformation of education has transformed the delivery of engineering courses, particularly  
in the following years after the COVID-19 pandemic. Traditionally, students required direct supervision from  
their instructors, but at this time classes can be conducted through different modalities such as synchronous,  
asynchronous, and including the online and face to face formats or blended learning. In this evolving  
environment, Computer Aided Design (CAD) education plays an important role for imparting engineering design  
skills that are both practical and technologically grounded. Future engineers have to excel in technical skills and  
can cope up to the emerging educational environments. They have to understand the impact of hybrid or mixed  
modalities on Computer Aided Design (CAD) education [1][7].  
In the post-pandemic era, the researcher’s claims that CAD learning is improved through interactive and visual  
teaching methods that foster experiential understanding. Studies suggest that online CAD courses can maintain  
student satisfaction and potentially match the effectiveness of traditional teaching techniques when designed  
properly and aimed at promoting active engagement [1]. Pando Cerra et al. (2023) shown that problem-based  
and self-assessment tools contributes to students' skills and motivation in CAD online learning environments  
[2]. Hybrid teaching has shown the capacity to improve the accessibility and consistency of engineering  
programs while facilitating various learning modalities [3][8][9].  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 990  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
In addition to the progress in online and hybrid education research, there are limited concrete evidences exists  
about the impact of hybrid or blended learning set up on teaching Computer Aided Design specifically on how  
it affects the learning outcomes in hands-on, design-intensive courses. Most studies have analyzed online or  
remote instruction alone, without assessing how the integration of online lectures and physical laboratory work  
influences skill development, digital literacy, and overall student performance in Computer Aided Design  
subjects.  
Addressing this gap is critical for establishing evidence-based instructional approaches that equips our students  
for the progressively digital and collaborative engineering environment. Blended Computer aided design  
instruction offers potential benefits such as flexibility, engagement, and applied learning but its effectiveness  
requires to be systematically evaluate. Understanding this can guide the universities and instructors in optimizing  
post-pandemic instructional approaches that combine the efficiency of digital tools with the irreplaceable  
experiences of face to face classes [3][8].  
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of blended or hybrid learning strategies in instructing  
Manufacturing Engineering students in Computer aided design, focusing on their impact on learning outcomes,  
engagement, and skills development. This study examines the impact of integrating online lectures, virtual  
demonstrations, and face to face laboratory designing activities on students' performance and satisfaction in  
Computer aided design education.  
RELATED LITERATURE  
A. Online and Hybrid Teaching in CAD Education  
Dagman and Wärmefjord (2022) examined online CAD teaching during the pandemic. They found that students  
generally adjusted well. Many rated online delivery the same as or better than traditional instruction. However,  
some students had difficulty with limited feedback and fewer chances for real-time questions and answers [1].  
Their findings indicate that while online teaching improves access, hybrid models might balance engagement  
and feedback quality better.  
Li et al. (2025) stressed that the success of hybrid teaching relies on support from institutions, teacher flexibility,  
and students’ digital skills. Their study pointed out that the teaching field—which includes teacher knowledge  
and technology use—greatly affects positive feelings about hybrid education [3].  
B. Project-Based and Problem-Based CAD Learning  
Several studies support active learning methods like problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning  
(PjBL) in CAD education. Pando Cerra et al. (2023) showed that using interactive self-assessment tools  
(TrainCAD) in PBL settings significantly boosted student performance and motivation [2]. Similarly, Sola-  
Guirado et al. (2022) used PjBL in virtual CAD/CAM/CAE environments and confirmed that project-based  
hybrid learning effectively builds technical and professional skills in design and manufacturing settings [5].  
C. Comparing Instructional Modalities and Student Outcomes  
Jayasekaran and Anwar (2022) conducted a study comparing different teaching methods: Emergency Remote  
Instruction (ERI), online learning, and HyFlex (hybrid) in an AutoCAD design course. The study found that ERI  
initially improved performance because of its flexible format. However, the most notable improvement came in  
hybrid settings where students could switch between online learning and hands-on practice [6]. This result  
matches other research showing that hybrid teaching helps students retain information better, solve problems  
more effectively, and feel more satisfied in technical courses.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 991  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
METHODOLOGY  
Research Design  
The study employed a descriptive comparative research design to evaluate the effectiveness of hybrid or blended  
computer aided design (CAD) instruction on the learning outcome, skills development, and engagement of  
Manufacturing Engineering Students.  
The hybrid or blended instructional model integrated online lectures and virtual demo with a face to face  
laboratory activity classes.  
The design focused on comparing student’s experiences and performance in two type of instruction:  
1. Fully face to face CAD classes – students taught entirely in face-to-face laboratory activity sessions.  
2. Hybrid/Blended CAD classes – students taught through a combination of online lectures, virtual  
demonstrations, and face to face laboratory activities.  
Participants  
The study involved second (2nd) and third (3rd) year Manufacturing Engineering Students enrolled in CAD course  
at Bulacan State University (BulSU). The participants are divided into two (2) groups.  
Group A (Fully face to face CAD classes) = (N = 10)  
Group B (Hybrid or Blended CAD classes) = (N = 10)  
Both groups followed the same course syllabus, assessment criteria, and learning objectives to ensure  
comparability. Student participation was voluntary, and their anonymity was maintained throughout the study.  
Data Collection Instruments  
1. Academic Performance Evaluation: The comparison of midterms and final project grades, laboratory  
activities and exercise, and quizzes.  
2. Student Engagement Survey: A structured questionnaire to validate hybrid learning evaluation tools,  
measured motivation, satisfaction, and participation.  
Data Analysis  
Quantitative data from academic performance scores and student engagement surveys were analyzed using  
descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation, to compare trends between instructional modalities.  
Given the limited sample size and exploratory nature of the study, inferential statistical testing was not applied.  
Qualitative data from open-ended survey responses were analyzed using thematic coding to identify recurring  
patterns related to engagement, challenges, and perceived effectiveness of hybrid CAD instruction.  
RESULT & DISCUSSION  
The quantitative data gathered from the student engagement survey and performance scores were analyzed using  
descriptive statistics, specifically the mean and standard deviation, to determine the overall level of motivation,  
satisfaction, and participation among students enrolled in Full Face-to-Face and Blended/Hybrid CAD classes.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 992  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
Academic Performance Evaluation  
TABLE 1 Academic Performance Evaluation  
Mean  
Activity  
Quiz  
Midterm  
Finals  
Exam  
Project  
Grade  
Hybrid/Bl  
ended  
14.718  
29.625  
100.000  
91.100  
28.665  
13.665  
96.519  
Learning  
Full Face  
to Face  
14.363  
29.775  
100.900  
87.900  
28.320  
13.185  
95.504  
Classes  
Table 1 presents the mean scores of students from the two instructional modalities fully face-to-face and  
hybrid/blended CAD classes across four performance indicators: laboratory activities, quizzes, midterm, final  
exam, and final project. The results indicate that students under the hybrid setup achieved slightly higher overall  
performance (푥  
difference was noted in Final exam, where hybrid learners performed better (푥  
face learners (푥 = 87.900).  
̄
= 96.519) than those in the face-to-face setup (푥  
̄
= 95.504). Among the components, the largest  
̄
= 91.100) compared to face-to-  
̄
The result indicates that the traditional and online methods of teaching, along with the various flexible self-paced  
components of hybrid learning, worked together to develop the students´ design skills by offering more  
opportunities for practice and review. This, in fact, coincides with the conclusions of Jayasekaran and Anwar  
(2022) who claimed that hybrid AutoCAD instruction not only retains but also brings about mastery of skills by  
means of repeated exposure and flexibility in learning modes.  
Variability of Performance (Standard Deviation Analysis)  
TABLE 2 Academic Performance Evaluation (Std)  
Standard Deviation  
Activity  
Quiz  
Midterm  
Finals  
Exam  
Project  
Grade  
Hybrid/Bl  
ended  
0.131  
0.395  
0.000  
2.961  
0.444  
0.444  
0.975  
Learning  
Full Face  
to Face  
0.596  
0.795  
2.183  
3.985  
0.640  
0.598  
0.667  
Classes  
The standard deviation measures the dispersion or spread of the scores. A lower standard deviation indicates that  
students' scores were clustered more tightly around the mean, suggesting more consistent performance within  
the group.  
1. Overall Percentage Grade: The Hybrid/Blended group has a slightly lower standard deviation with the  
value of 1.26 than the Face-to-Face group with 1.35. This suggests the Hybrid/Blended group's  
performance was slightly more consistent among its students.  
2. Quizzes and Activities: The Hybrid/Blended group shows significantly less variability in Activity (SD =  
0.131) and Quiz (SD = 0.395) scores. This is a notable finding: the blended learning environment appears  
to promote much more consistent performance in these frequent assessment types.  
3. Midterm and Finals: The Face-to-Face group shows much higher variability in both Midterm (SD =  
2.193) and Finals (SD = 3.985). This indicates that scores in the Face-to-Face class were more spread  
out some students scored very high, and others scored much lower.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 993  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
This result aligns with Li et al. (2025), who emphasized that well-supported hybrid instruction when coupled  
with digital literacy and teacher flexibility helps reduce performance gaps among students  
Student Engagement Survey Results  
TABLE 3 Student Engagement Survey Result  
Category  
Full Face to  
Face Mean  
Blended/Hybrid  
Mean  
Motivation  
Satisfaction  
Participation  
Overall  
3.460  
3.560  
3.620  
3.547  
3.820  
3.640  
3.780  
3.670  
3.960  
3.790  
3.853  
3.700  
Average Mean  
Motivation  
The Motivation scale consisting of Items 1–5 received a mean score of 3.82 (Blended/Hybrid Class) and 3.46  
(Face-to-Face Class), which were both rated High. It means that students from both modes are interested in  
learning CAD, however the hybrid one may increase their interests to practice regularly and to comprehend  
difficult tasks through demonstrating online. The presence of digital tools, multimedia resources, and the self-  
paced nature of online learning may have contributed to higher motivation levels among hybrid learners.  
This finding supports the notion of self-determined learning, where autonomy and accessibility foster greater  
intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The hybrid learning environment thus allows students to take greater  
control of their learning process, leading to improved engagement and interest in CAD activities.  
Satisfaction  
The mean for the Satisfaction (Items 6–10), was 3.78 for the Blended/Hybrid Class and that of the Face-to-Face  
class was 3.56, which is High on both scales. These findings suggest students from both learning environments  
are generally satisfied with the quality of teaching, assessment approach and resources. Yet hybrid learners  
reported rather greater satisfaction, which may be due to the balance struck between convenience and  
interactivity in this format.  
Students perceived the use of user-friendly online tools and the flexible assessment mechanisms as key  
contributors to their positive learning experience. This aligns with the findings of Means et al. (2013), who noted  
that learners in blended environments often exhibit higher satisfaction due to the combination of technological  
engagement and face-to-face collaboration.  
Participation  
In the Participation (Par. 11.1-15) the Blended / Hybrid Class averaged 3.96, and the Face-to-Face Class 3.62,  
both High interpretation range scores. This indicates that students are for the most part active in both modes of  
instruction, but in the hybrid format their activities were more likely to be discussions, group work and  
connection with professors. By combining live and online classes there were many ways to interact. Students  
were able to work and cooperate well in this multiple format towards degree projects which met everyone's needs  
equally: part-virtual, Interactions for instance where work/discussing papers got done together.  
The increased participation among hybrid learners may also reflect the impact of digital collaboration platforms,  
which encourage communication beyond class hours. This supports earlier studies by Bernard et al. (2014),  
highlighting that blended learning enhances peer collaboration, engagement, and learning outcomes compared  
to traditional classroom setups.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 994  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Responses  
To complement the quantitative data, qualitative comments were obtained by asking students three open-ended  
questions (eras written in their own words) about their experiences, challenges, and suggestions for taking  
Hybrid CAD. Their narratives were thematically analyzed, and the patterns/themes emerging from the data were  
identified.  
Concerning the 1st questions, students mentioned that e-lectures with in-hand lab tasks were helpful and  
supported their CAD concept learning. Material resources for learning purposes (including online course  
materials, such as video, slide and recorded lectures) facilitated self-study and revision. Many emphasized that  
the hybrid format had helped them learn self-regulation and flexibility, studying at their own tempo. In addition,  
the oral discussion on site and feedback in time combined to supplement learning and motivation.  
The poor internet connection was the most common challenge mentioned in the answers to the 2nd question.  
Besides that, some students had limited access to CAD software (SolidWorks), and they reported that it was  
difficult for them to concentrate during the online classes. Few students also found it hard to manage their time  
between online and in-person sessions, and some of them talked about coordination and scheduling problems.  
Students came up with a couple of ideas for making the learning process better which they had in the 3rd  
question. They suggested that schools should prepare offline or downloadable learning materials for those  
students who have a bad internet connection. Also, they proposed that the institution can provide student access  
to licensed software or give them permission to use the laboratory for longer hours so that they can practice  
more.  
The qualitative part of the research shows that students consider hybrid CAD instruction as a productive learning  
method if it is supported by the necessary technological and pedagogical resources. Nevertheless, the  
achievement of this model is very much dependent on the availability of a stable internet connection and licensed  
software. These insights reinforce the quantitative data showing higher motivation, satisfaction, and participation  
among hybrid learners, underscoring the need for continuous digital and instructional support in engineering  
education.  
Overall Discussion  
TABLE 4 Student Engagement Survey Result (Overall)  
Full Face- Blended/  
Overall  
to-Face  
Hybrid  
Mean  
Std Dev  
3.700  
1.001  
3.547  
0.971  
3.853  
1.018  
The mean scores of all categories shows that Blended/Hybrid Class students rated consistently higher than Full  
Face-to-Face Class. The implementation of hybrid learning seems to better engage students, as it utilizes digital  
as well as face to face class. The high motivation, satisfaction and participation rates exhibited by the two groups  
further validate the positive effect of technology integration in Computer aided design teaching.  
These findings suggest that hybrid/blended CAD modality fulfills students’ need to quality of learning and it  
inspires their activeness in participation and desire for learning (motivation). This combination of face-to-face  
and online methods creates flexible and independent learning, proper time-pacing and improved levels of student  
engagement factors that are particularly important in skills-based and design oriented subjects such as Computer-  
Aided Design.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 995  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
In conclusion, the results confirm that Blended/Hybrid learning leads to higher level of engagement and better  
learning experiences for students versus traditional Face to face class. This is consistent with the emerging view  
in the engineering education literature that blended learning models are successful for enhancing cognitive as  
well as affective student learning outcomes.  
Limitations of the Study  
Although the findings of this study indicate positive effects of blended/hybrid CAD instruction on student  
performance and engagement, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size was relatively  
small (N = 20), which limits the statistical power of the analysis and the generalizability of the results beyond  
the study context. The participants were drawn from a single Manufacturing Engineering program at Bulacan  
State University, and therefore the findings may not fully represent outcomes across other engineering  
disciplines or institutions.  
Second, external factors such as students’ access to stable internet connectivity, availability of personal  
computing devices, and access to licensed CAD software (e.g., SolidWorks) were not fully controlled. These  
variables may have influenced individual learning experiences and performance outcomes, particularly in the  
hybrid learning environment.  
Third, the study relied primarily on descriptive statistical methods to compare group performance and  
engagement levels. While this approach was appropriate given the exploratory nature and limited sample size,  
future studies are encouraged to employ inferential statistical techniques such as t-tests, ANOVA, or regression  
analysis to establish stronger causal relationships.  
CONCLUSION  
This study shows that blended or hybrid Computer-Aided Design (CAD) class set up is a better and more  
engaging learning modality for educating Manufacturing Engineering students compared to traditional face-to-  
face class set up. The results showed that students who used the hybrid system scored better on their academics  
overall, particularly on design projects and final assessments. Students learned the ideas better and become better  
at using technology by combining hands on laboratory activity, online and virtual lectures  
The student engagement survey also showed that hybrid/blended learners were more motivated, satisfied, and  
involved. The results showed the importance to have a flexible, accessible and interactive learning environment.  
The study finds that the use of both digital learning tools and face to face classes improves the academic  
performance of the students This is the reason why hybrid/blended learning works well for teaching Computer  
aided design that require practical skills.  
The findings indicate that blended or hybrid CAD instruction leads to higher engagement and improved learning  
experiences compared to traditional face-to-face instruction, these results should be interpreted within the scope  
of the study’s limitations. The evidence supports the potential of hybrid learning as an effective instructional  
strategy for skills-based engineering courses. However, broader implementation should be accompanied by  
sufficient technological infrastructure and institutional support.  
RECOMMENDATIONS  
Based on the findings and limitations, future studies should aim to involve a larger and more diverse sample size  
across multiple engineering programs to strengthen the generalizability of the results. Researchers are  
encouraged to incorporate inferential statistical tests (such as t-tests or ANOVA) to provide stronger evidence  
of performance differences. Additionally, exploring variables such as students' digital literacy and learning styles  
could provide deeper insights. Practically, institutions implementing hybrid CAD instruction should develop  
structured support systems, including offline downloadable materials and extended laboratory access, to ensure  
equity for students with limited internet connectivity.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 996  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XI, November 2025  
REFERENCES  
1. A. Dagman and K. Wärmefjord, “An Evidence-Based Study on Teaching Computer Aided Design in  
Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Education Sciences, vol. 12, no. 29, pp. 1–13,  
2022.  
2. P. Pando Cerra et al., “Boosting Computer-Aided Design Pedagogy Using Interactive Self-Assessment  
Graphical Tools,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 26–46, 2023.  
3. Q. Li, R. Xie, and M. Li, “Factors Influencing Positive Perceptions of Hybrid Teaching in Higher  
Education: A Case Study of an Engineering University,” International Journal of Educational  
Technology in Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 24, 2025.  
4. C. Dasgupta, A. J. Magana, and C. Vieira, “Investigating the Affordances of a CAD Enabled Learning  
Environment for Promoting Integrated STEM Learning,” Computers & Education, vol. 129, pp. 122–  
142, 2019.  
5. R. R. Sola-Guirado, G. Guerrero-Vacas, and Ó. Rodríguez-Alabanda, “Teaching CAD/CAM/CAE  
Tools with Project-Based Learning in Virtual Distance Education,” Education and Information  
Technologies, vol. 27, pp. 5051–5073, 2022.  
6. S. R. Jayasekaran and S. Anwar, “The Impact of Different Modes of Instruction and Its Impact on  
Students’ Performance During COVID-19 in an AutoCAD Design Course,” ASEE Conference  
Proceedings, 2022.  
7. Osaili, T. M., Ismail, L. C., ElMehdi, H. M., Al-Nabulsi, A. A., Taybeh, A. O., Saleh, S. T., Kassem,  
H., Alkhalidy, H., Ali, H. I., Al Dhaheri, A. S., & Stojanovska, L. (2023). Comparison of students’  
perceptions of online and hybrid learning modalities during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of the  
University of Sharjah. PLoS ONE, 18(3), e0283513.  
8. Li, M., & Li, Q. (2021). 场域视角下" 融合交互" 混合式教学模式的探索 [Exploration of the  
“integrated interaction” modes of online teaching from the perspective of field]. Modern Educational  
Technology, 31(9), 120–126.  
9. Li, Q., Li, Z., & Han, J. (2021). A hybrid learning pedagogy for surmounting the challenges of the  
COVID-19 pandemic in the performing arts education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6),  
7635–7655.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 997