The comparative study of Capstone Senior Design (CSD) projects at Texas A&M University–Texarkana (TAMUT) and Texas A&M–RELLIS offers a detailed look at how instructional mode influences student performance, teamwork, and mentorship in engineering education. In this structured evaluation, electrical and mechanical engineering students were assessed across both face-to-face (F2F) and synchronous online environments using metrics such as overall project success, advisor feedback, peer reviews, and self-assessments.
At TAMUT, F2F teams consistently demonstrated higher average performance scores, achieving 3.841 out of 4 compared to 3.586 for online students at RELLIS. The low standard deviation of 0.069 for F2F scores indicated uniform achievement levels, suggesting that in-person settings foster consistent mastery of course material. In contrast, online students exhibited greater variability (standard deviation 0.179), pointing to differences in adaptability, resource access, and learning preferences.
Advisor evaluations revealed a notable reversal in trends. Online students at RELLIS scored higher on average (3.59) than their F2F peers (3.47), with a tighter standard deviation of 0.18 versus 0.54. This suggests that the online advisory process may be more structured and consistent, enabling faculty to monitor progress closely and apply uniform evaluation standards. The wider spread in F2F advisor scores hints at diverse influences, such as project type and interpersonal dynamics, which may affect assessments.
Self-evaluation data showed F2F students rating themselves more consistently and favorably in punctuality, responsibility, and timely task completion. Online students, while scoring highly in cooperation and supportiveness, displayed greater variability in responsibility and timeliness, reflecting challenges in remote coordination. Both groups rated listening skills highly, though F2F students reported slightly more harmonious interactions.
Peer review results reinforced the strength of F2F collaboration. TAMUT students received perfect scores in punctuality, cooperation, and listening, with zero variability across reviewers—an indicator of cohesive team dynamics. Online students matched perfect scores in punctuality and cooperation but rated lower in task completion (3.67) and work quality (3.33), with higher variability in responsibility. This variability suggests that while remote teams can maintain strong interpersonal rapport, execution consistency may suffer without physical proximity.
The CSD structure at TAMUT integrates multidisciplinary teams tackling industry-sponsored projects over two semesters. Students engage in problem-solving that spans software, hardware, testing, and project management, with deliverables including proposals, midterm reports, final designs, and public presentations. Industry mentors evaluate both verbal and written presentation skills, adding professional rigor to the academic process. At RELLIS, the same course content is delivered online, with students relying on Two Way Interactive Video for communication and coordination.
The broader context of this study aligns with prior research in engineering education. Studies by Goñi et al. (2020) and Paul and Jefferson (2019) found minimal differences in learning objectives between online and F2F formats, though certain collaborative elements were less frequent online. Jain and Sobek (2004) emphasized the importance of robust assessment tools, while Morris (2021) highlighted the value of industry-level project management practices in capstone settings. These works collectively underscore that while academic outcomes can be comparable, the mode of delivery shapes team dynamics and consistency.
At the institutional level, the Texas A&M–RELLIS campus offers expansive facilities for research in autonomous systems, energy solutions, and advanced manufacturing, alongside workforce development programs. Its Academic Alliance facilitates seamless transfer from community colleges to bachelor’s programs, including electrical engineering. TAMUT’s partnership with RELLIS provides students access to these resources while maintaining its own F2F program delivery.
The data from this comparative analysis suggest that F2F environments excel in fostering uniform performance and strong team cohesion, while online settings can deliver effective, consistent mentorship. Addressing variability in online teamwork may involve enhancing virtual collaboration tools, refining remote project management practices, and standardizing evaluation criteria. Leveraging the strengths of both modalities could yield an optimized hybrid approach, preparing engineering students for the diverse collaboration models they will encounter in industry.