Castles, R. T. (2016, June), Flipping the Microprocessors Classroom: A Comparative Assessment  Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10.18260/p.26928

\bibitem{asee_peer_26928}
  Castles, R. T. (2016, June), \emph{Flipping the Microprocessors Classroom: A Comparative Assessment}
  Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana.
  10.18260/p.26928

Ricky T. Castles.  "Flipping the Microprocessors Classroom: A Comparative Assessment".  2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2016, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2016.  https://peer.asee.org/26928 Internet.  24 Apr, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_26928}
  Ricky T. Castles.
  "Flipping the Microprocessors Classroom: A Comparative Assessment".
  \emph{2016 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2016, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2016.
  https://peer.asee.org/26928 Internet.  24 Apr, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_26928
author = "Ricky T. Castles"
title = "Flipping the Microprocessors Classroom: A Comparative Assessment"
booktitle = "2016 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2016"
month = "June"
address = "New Orleans, Louisiana"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/26928}
number = {10.18260/p.26928}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - At this university, undergraduate students in an electrical engineering concentration within a general engineering program are required to complete a microprocessors course.  This course has been taught for three years.  During the first two years, the course was offered in a traditional format with 3 weekly lectures and one weekly hands-on lab.  It was discovered that the weekly lab time was insufficient to complete several longer lab assignments and many students had to complete their lab assignments outside of the allotted lab period.  It was also discovered that many students had misconceptions about course material and often attended office hours to get help understanding the material.  During the third year, the instructor flipped the classroom and recorded the lectures and posted them for students to watch before coming to class.  While the contact time between the students and instructor remained the same throughout the week, the lecture periods were changed to include hands-on activities such completing worksheets to assess lecture content knowledge, practice writing subroutines that could be used as part of the weekly lab assignment, or building circuits to interface external devices with a microcontroller.  Each of the in-class activities was designed to measure student understanding of course topics and to offload some of the laboratory work done during previous semesters to the lecture period.

This paper assesses the differences in student outcomes between the traditional and flipped format of the course.  Common final exam question responses from the traditional and flipped offering are compared to showcase the differences in student comprehension of course topics.  Student survey results are also assessed to determine the benefits and limitations of the flipped classroom approach versus the traditional classroom format.  The shortcomings of the current format are addressed and suggestions for improvement based upon one semester of using a flipped classroom approach are discussed.

AU  - Ricky T. Castles
CY  - New Orleans, Louisiana
DA  - 2016/06/26
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Flipping the Microprocessors Classroom: A Comparative Assessment
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/26928
DO  - 10.18260/p.26928
ER  -