New Orleans, Louisiana
June 26, 2016
June 26, 2016
August 28, 2016
Educational Research and Methods
Motivation and Background: A flipped classroom reverses the paradigm of traditional lecture courses by delivering lectures outside of class – by means such as videos or screencasts – and using class meeting time for instructor-mediated active learning. This format has the potential to transform STEM education by increasing student time spent on what research has demonstrated to be the most effective teaching techniques (i.e. active learning) without sacrificing material coverage or educational scaffolding. Many educators are flipping their classrooms, but there is limited data on learning gains currently available. We have rigorously examined the impact of three instructors inverting two STEM courses, in engineering (thermodynamics) and mathematics (differential equations), by measuring student learning gains and attitudes towards the course material and comparing to a “traditional” active learning control class. Our expected measureable outcomes were:
1. Higher learning gains; 2. Increased ability to apply material in new situations (transfer); 3. Increased interest in and positive attitudes towards STEM fields (affective gains); and 4. Increased awareness by students of how they learn and strategies that support their learning (metacognitive gains).
Our hypothesis was that increased student learning would arise primarily because of the additional time that students will have with instructors actively working on meaningful tasks in class.
Methodology: The study design was composed of three components: (1) direct assessment measures specific to each of course/discipline in addition to indirect assessment measures; (2) comparison of control and experimental sections offered simultaneously (to reduce student demographic variability) using the same instructor (to limit instructor bias); and (3) direct assessment of learning gains and application both within the course and in downstream courses to determine if learning gains persist.
Results: For nearly all measures across the three-year study, the flipped classroom model showed mostly equivalent results to the traditional active classroom model in terms of student performance. While these findings do not support original expectations of the inverted model, there are possible explanations for these results. It is possible that detecting differences in student performance may be difficult, since students at [school name redacted for review] generally have high academic achievement regardless of the classroom design and the culture of collaboration is already strong. Another possible explanation is that the intervention (i.e., the inverted classroom) was not distinct enough from the traditional active learning course sections and therefore was not a sufficiently strong intervention in comparison to the control. For the first two years of the study, the course formats were similar between the inverted and traditional classes: students encountered similar assignments, homework, and tests regardless of the class format. The main difference for students between the two classroom models was when they had access to the professors for questions, during the lecture (traditional) or while doing homework (inverted). The third year of the study relaxed this requirement but did not show significantly different results.
Conclusions and Next Steps: These results suggest that the rearrangement of classroom activities and homework may not have a measurable effect on student performance. Some literature suggests that an expansion of the curriculum, rather than a mere rearrangement, is necessary to properly implement an inverted course model (Bishop & Vergeler, 2013). Our data also seem to support the idea that students are impacted the most when an active-learning style of instruction is used, regardless of when they are introduced to new content (in the classroom or at home through video lecture. For the final (fourth) study year, Engineering 82 and Math 45 courses will include an integrated “best practices” or hybrid model of instruction for all participating course sections, hence, eliminating distinct study groups. These results will be compared to results from the first three years of the study to see if student performance has improved.
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: © 2016 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