June 15, 2014
June 15, 2014
June 18, 2014
24.614.1 - 24.614.17
Flipped Biomedical Engineering Classroom using Pencasts and Muddiest Point Web-enabled ToolsStudies have shown that student-centered instruction can be more effective than teacher-centered. Here, we investigate student value and attitude of several such strategies used tofacilitate student-centered instruction. More specifically, we ask “What is the effect of theflipped classroom, pencasts, cyber-based muddiest point collection, and group-based activitieson student attitude, achievement, and retention in a statistics course for biomedical engineering(BME) undergraduates?”The organization of classes is as follows: students watch pencasts, submit the muddiest and mostinteresting points online, engage in review on the muddiest points in class, and then apply thelecture material in-class using group activities. More specifically, pencasts are created using asmart pen, capturing both handwriting and voice and then distributed easily as a small, audioPDF. Muddiest and most interesting point feedback is submitted through a web-based platform,Concept Warehouse (CW) and the data is automatically output in tabular form, with an intensityscale of 0-5 and a word cloud with word size proportional to word frequency. This allowsinstructors to easily pinpoint the muddiest and most interesting concepts.Two surveys were administered anonymously to discern student value and attitude regardingthese strategies: 1) the validated Student Value Survey on Muddiest Points (SVM) created byCarberry, et al. which focuses on interest and utility value as well as cost related to muddiestpoint collection (n=52, 4-point scale) and 2) a new survey called the BME Student-centeredStrategies (BSS) Survey regarding the flipped classroom, pencasts, muddiest points, and groupactivities (n=39, 5-point scale with 3-neutral). The Cronbach’s alpha for the BSS survey was0.964 indicating excellent internal consistency. A confirmatory factor analysis yieldedcoefficients greater than 0.7.SVM results indicate that students felt the muddiest point exercise motivated them to do well(50%), effectively increased engagement (62%), helped them better understand their ownlearning (63%), and increased responsibility for their learning (62%). Also, students felt themuddiest point exercise did not take too much effort (85%), make them feel anxious or frustrated(88%), and did not require too much time (92%). Lastly, students felt that the material learned inthe course will be of value after graduation (96%), will be useful in their careers (94%), andhelped them see real-world relevance of the material (94%).Results from the pilot study of the BSS survey showed that the most favorable response (92%)was about pencasts. More specifically, students felt the pencasts were informative (95%) andprepared them well for class activities (87%) and homework (95%). Average positive responsepercentages for the flipped classroom, design project, class activities, and muddiest points are asfollows: 47%, 62%, 76%, and 74% respectively. Additional details will be presented in the fullpaper including an analysis to determine the most effective student-centered strategies in thisstatistics course with respect to student attitude, achievement, and retention. In summary, thisstudy demonstrates that the use of web-enabled pencasts and muddiest points as well as groupactivities is an effective pedagogy for teaching and learning in the flipped classroom.
Ankeny, C. J., & Krause, S. J. (2014, June), Flipped Biomedical Engineering Classroom Using Pencasts and Muddiest Point Web-Enabled Tools Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. https://peer.asee.org/20505
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: © 2014 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