Engineering education is rapidly transitioning toward hybrid and fully online models in response to the digitalization of industry and the growing demand for flexible learning. In this context, the ability of engineering students to work productively with online platforms—learning management systems, virtual laboratories, collaboration suites, and assessment tools—has become a foundational professional competence rather than a peripheral add-on. This article conceptualizes “skills in working with online platforms” as a compound of technological fluency, academic digital literacy, collaborative problem-solving, data ethics and security awareness, and self-regulated learning. Drawing on established pedagogical frameworks and engineering accreditation logics, it explains how such skills support core outcomes including problem analysis, design, teamwork, and lifelong learning. The study proposes an implementation model that embeds platform skills into the curriculum through scaffolded design tasks, authentic assessments, and virtual experimentation aligned with professional standards. It outlines methodological considerations for evaluating impact, emphasizing triangulated evidence from learning analytics, performance artifacts, and learner self-regulation indicators. Results synthesized from the literature and practice suggest that integrated development of platform skills enhances engagement, increases the quality of design documentation, strengthens collaboration in distributed teams, and supports equitable access to laboratory-like experiences via online or remote labs. The paper concludes with implications for program leaders and instructors, highlighting the need for coherent policy, faculty development, and assessment rubrics that value process and professional conduct in digital spaces alongside technical outcomes.  

Engineering education, online platforms, virtual labs

Anderson T., Dron J. Three generations of distance education pedagogy // The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2011. Vol. 12, No. 3.

Moore M.G. Editorial: Three types of interaction // American Journal of Distance Education. 1989. Vol. 3, No. 2. P. 1–7.

Mishra P., Koehler M.J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge // Teachers College Record. 2006. Vol. 108, No. 6. P. 1017–1054.

Graham C.R. Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions // In: Bonk C., Graham C.R. (eds.) Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2006. P. 3–21.

Prince M.J. Does active learning work? A review of the research // Journal of Engineering Education. 2004. Vol. 93, No. 3. P. 223–231.

Bernard R.M., Abrami P.C., Borokhovski E., Wade A., Tamim R., Surkes M., Bethel E. A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education // Distance Education. 2009. Vol. 30, No. 1. P. 1–46.

Laurillard D. Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. London: Routledge, 2012. 272 p.

Biggs J., Tang C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2011. 418 p.

IEEE Std 1876-2019. IEEE Standard for Networked Smart Learning Objects for Online Laboratories. New York: IEEE, 2019. 64 p.

ABET. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. 2024–2025. Baltimore, MD: ABET, 2024.

ISO/IEC 40180:2017. Information technology — Quality for learning, education and training — Fundamentals and reference framework. Geneva: ISO/IEC, 2017.

World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs Report 2023. Geneva: WEF, 2023.