Cavalli, M., & Neubert, J. J., & McNally, D., & Jacklitch-Kuiken, D. (2014, June), Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions Across Multiple Course Delivery Modes  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--20191

\bibitem{asee_peer_20191}
  Cavalli, M., \& Neubert, J. J., \& McNally, D., \& Jacklitch-Kuiken, D. (2014, June), \emph{Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions Across Multiple Course Delivery Modes}
  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  10.18260/1-2--20191

Matthew Cavalli, Jeremiah J. Neubert, Dustin McNally, and Debbie Jacklitch-Kuiken.  "Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions Across Multiple Course Delivery Modes".  2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2014.  https://peer.asee.org/20191 Internet.  14 Dec, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_20191}
  Matthew Cavalli, Jeremiah J. Neubert, Dustin McNally, and Debbie Jacklitch-Kuiken.
  "Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions Across Multiple Course Delivery Modes".
  \emph{2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2014.
  https://peer.asee.org/20191 Internet.  14 Dec, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_20191
author = "Matthew Cavalli, Jeremiah J. Neubert, Dustin McNally, and Debbie Jacklitch-Kuiken"
title = "Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions Across Multiple Course Delivery Modes"
booktitle = "2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2014"
month = "June"
address = "Indianapolis, Indiana"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/20191}
number = {10.18260/1-2--20191}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -            Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions Across                       Multiple Course Delivery ModesAbstractThe concept of the flipped class has received a great deal of attention in recent years. In aflipped class, students are expected to view lecture material prior to the class period so that timewith the instructor can be spent on higher level problem solving and discussions. Previous workhas shown the potential for both deeper learning and extended content coverage using the flippedinstructional model. During the Fall 2013 semester, four courses were selected to evaluate theflipped delivery mode for both on-campus and at-a-distance learners in comparison with a moretraditional course structure. The courses selected included an introductory mechanicalengineering design course, an introductory engineering mechanics course, a computerprogramming/numerical methods course, and a junior-level materials science course. Allcourses included both on-campus and at-a-distance learners. At least two of the followingcohorts were included in each course: on-campus traditional class format, on-campus flippedformat, at-a-distance flipped format. Comparisons of student learning between the differentcohorts were made with the use of pre- and post-tests as well as other assessment mechanismsduring the course of the semester. In addition, all students were surveyed at the end of thesemester in all courses to understand their perceptions of the effectiveness of the teachingmethod used for their section and to allow them the opportunity to offer suggestions forimprovement. Advantages and limitations of the traditional and flipped course structure in eachcourse will be discussed with suggestions for potential future improvements.
AU  - Matthew Cavalli
AU  - Jeremiah J. Neubert
AU  - Dustin McNally
AU  - Debbie Jacklitch-Kuiken
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions Across Multiple Course Delivery Modes
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/20191
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--20191
ER  -