Online engineering education has expanded rapidly in recent years and many questions have been raised about the learning outcomes and content mastery in online classes as they compare with traditional face-to-face formats. This paper compares the learning outcomes and content mastery for students in an Engineering Mechanics (Statics) course taught in three different modes of instruction. This study was initiated in 2011 with a cohort of three courses: one taught asynchronously online, one taught face-to-face, and a third taught via synchronous audiographics. Students provided feedback on their use of instructional resources, their learning styles, and their attitudes throughout the semester. Content mastery was measured through student performance on proctored exams. Due to the small number of students in the initial cohort of the online course, the assessments were repeated with a second cohort of students in online and face-to-face courses in the spring of 2014.The results of this study show that in the first cohort (2011), the online students outperformed the face-to-face when given identical problems on proctored quizzes and exams. Attitudes among students in the face-to-face and online classes were similar and generally positive. The performance of students in the audiographics distance class fell into the range between the online and face-to-face classes. However, students who were in the synchronous audiographics class were less satisfied with their mode of instruction despite their competence with the course content.In the second cohort of students (2014), there was little to no difference in content mastery between students who completed the online and face-to-face sections of the class. Scores on identical proctored exam problems were similar to those earned by the face-to-face students in the initial cohort of 2011. In both cohorts of students, withdrawal and non-completion rates were higher in the online and audiographics courses than either of the face-to-face courses.

Introduction: Often service user involvement in forensic mental health settings can fail to address service users' views in a systematic way and is more likely to be designed around organisational priorities. Method: Community meetings in six forensic medium–secure units and three neurodevelopmental (ND) units were compared. Using framework analysis, the study evaluated practice, in particular how staff and service users interacted and the issues raised at meetings. Data was collected from interviews, questionnaires and minutes of the meetings. Results: On average, meetings were more frequent in ND than in forensic units. Difficulties were reported in resolving issues due to factors including shift patterns, staff who could make decisions being unavailable, and policy and budget constraints. Forensic unit groups tended to focus on information and ND groups on activities and the ward environment. Complaints were more likely to be raised in forensic units than in ND units. Discussion: This study provides an insight into community groups and offers an insight into the realities of user engagement in community meetings.

No abstract