Salt Lake City, Utah
June 23, 2018
June 23, 2018
July 27, 2018
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
The flipped classroom approach to content delivery has become prevalent in recent years. A key benefit of the flipped approach is that it promotes active learning because work on problem solving or other activities occurs during the lecture rather than passively absorbing lecture material. Because lecture material is generally watched individually, outside of class, students are able to self-pace their learning. The introductory computer aided drafting and design (CADD) course at the University of Wisconsin – River Falls has been offered in a flipped format for 6 years. The course syllabus details the schedule of topics, assignments and assessments. Because of the volume of material, a rigid course schedule was kept (no late work allowed). This model is adequate for the majority of learners. However, some students, for a variety of reasons, fall behind by not watching lecture material and/or missing assignment deadlines. Given the obvious advantages of a flipped classroom for self-paced learning, we asked the question: would a semi self-paced (SSP) format result in different learning outcomes (course grade) and result in different perceptions of the course? In one section of the course a (SSP) flipped format was implemented, while the other section maintained rigid assignment deadlines. Students in the SSP section were able to submit homework assignments at any point without penalty up to an exam date. Exam dates (2-midterms) were fixed to promote self-regulation. Suggested due dates for assignments were also provided to promote self-regulation. Grading bias was addressed by having each instructor grade an entire assignment for both sections. For example, one instructor would grade both section’s assignment 1, while the other would grade assignment 2, and so on. At the end of the course a comparison of course grade and assignment completion rates will be compared between the SSP and control sections. In addition differences in learner satisfaction and perceptions of the course will be evaluated through the use of a survey instrument.
Peterson, J., & Digman, M. F. (2018, June), A Comparison of Learning Outcomes and Learner Satisfaction in a CADD Course with Flexible and Rigid Deadlines Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--29664
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2018 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015