Student Perceptions of Inverted Classroom Benefits in a First-Year Engineering Course

Krista M. Kecskemety; Brooke Morin

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Publication Date: June 15, 2014
Start Date: June 15, 2014
End Date: June 18, 2014
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: FPD 5: Course Delivery Methods and Issues
Tagged Division: First-Year Programs
Page Count: 13
Page Numbers: 24.1121.1 - 24.1121.13
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--23054
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/23054
Download Count: 624

Paper Authors

biography

Krista M. Kecskemety Ohio State University

visit author page

Krista Kecskemety is a lecturer in the Engineering Education Innovation Center at The Ohio State University. Krista received her B.S. in Aerospace Engineering at The Ohio State University in 2006 and received her M.S. from Ohio State in 2007. In 2012, Krista completed her Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State. Her engineering education research interests include investigating first-year engineering student experiences, faculty experiences, and the connection between the two.

visit author page

author page

Brooke Morin Ohio State University

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Student Perceptions of Inverted Classroom Benefits in a First- Year Engineering CourseThe inverted classroom model has increased in popularity and its many benefits have beendiscussed1,2. Due to contact time limitations and the desire for more active learning, the first-year engineering program at a large Midwestern university elected to implement the inverted, orflipped, classroom model3. Through this model, the instructors hoped to dedicate their contacttime with students to addressing conceptual problems and facilitating in-class activities, ratherthan lecturing about factual material. Further, by holding students accountable for their pre-classpreparation, the environment would foster the skills necessary for lifelong learning. The invertedclassroom model has many potential benefits that are noted in the literature. Some of theseinclude: make effective use of class time, make good use of technology, accommodate variouslearning styles2,4, help students become self-learners2, foster life-long learning skills4,collaborative learning4, personalize learning5, and increase class time engagement5. Whileprevious research has investigated student perceptions of the inverted classroom2,5, this paperseeks to address the following research questions that are focused on students’ perceivedbenefits: How do students perceive that they benefit from the inverted classroom approach?Additionally, which classroom approach do students prefer and is there a connection to theirperceived benefits?The fall semester course used in this study focused primarily on computer-aided problem solvingusing Excel, MATLAB, and C/C++. Academic integrity, engineering ethics, data analysis, teambuilding, and the engineering design process were also covered. There was a laboratorycomponent to the course, which included exercises from a variety of engineering disciplines. Theinverted classroom model was applied to each course component. The theoretical framework forthe inverted classroom approach is based on Bloom’s taxonomy. Each instructional day wasdivided into two parts: preparation and application. The preparation component, completedbefore class, used lower-level Bloom’s taxonomy skills of remembering and understanding6.The preparation involved pre-class learning activities such as videos, reading assignments, andtutorials. Student completion of the preparation activity was evaluated either through an onlinequiz or through a short assignment submitted at the beginning of class. The applicationcomponent began in the normal class period and included a short presentation, in-class activities,and homework, often requiring students to use higher-level Bloom’s taxonomy skills, such asapplication, analysis, and evaluation.To examine student perceptions, two surveys were administered to the students. Approximately348 students participated in the study. The first survey was given at the end of the first week ofthe term. Similar questions were then given to the students at the end of the semester as part ofthe final course survey. Students were asked which classroom approach they preferred:traditional, inverted classroom, or a mixture of the two. Additionally, the survey asked them torank their opinion of the benefits of the inverted classroom on a 5 point Likert scale. The surveyalso asked the students if they had experienced the inverted classroom in other courses.Data are still being collected and analyzed. As of abstract submission, preliminary data indicatethat 41% of students had taken a class using the inverted classroom prior to this first yearengineering course. Despite the high percentage of students who had experienced the invertedclassroom approach before, only 15% of students indicated it was their preferred classroomapproach. Approximately 75% of students indicated a preference for a mixture of the traditionalclassroom approach and the inverted classroom approach. Further analysis will be performed onthe link between exposure to the inverted classroom approach in other courses and theirpreference in classroom approach. Detailed analysis of the students’ perceived benefits will alsobe included. Additionally, the final survey will be used to investigate how student’s perceptionschange throughout the semester as they complete a course that uses the inverted classroom modelexclusively.References1. J.F. Strayer. “How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation andtask orientation”, Learning Environments Research, vol. 15, 171-193, 2012.2. G. Mason, T.R. Shuman, and K.E. Cook. “Inverting (Flipping) Classrooms – Advantages andChallenges,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society of EngineeringEducation, 2013.3. M.J. Lage, G.J. Platt, and M. Treglia. “Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating anInclusive Learning Environment,” The Journal of Economic Education, vol. 31, no. 1, Winter2000.4. L. Bland. “Applying Flip/Inverted Classroom Model in Electrical Engineering to EstablishLife-Long Learning,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society ofEngineering Education, 2006.5. M.W. Redekopp and G. Ragusa. “Evaluating Flipped Classroom Strategies and Tools forComputer Engineering,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society ofEngineering Education, 2013.6. L.W. Anderson, et al. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Addison WesleyLongman, Inc., Illinois, 2001.

Citation
Format

Kecskemety, K. M., & Morin, B. (2014, June), Student Perceptions of Inverted Classroom Benefits in a First-Year Engineering Course Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--23054

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -           Student Perceptions of Inverted Classroom Benefits in a First-                           Year Engineering CourseThe inverted classroom model has increased in popularity and its many benefits have beendiscussed1,2. Due to contact time limitations and the desire for more active learning, the first-year engineering program at a large Midwestern university elected to implement the inverted, orflipped, classroom model3. Through this model, the instructors hoped to dedicate their contacttime with students to addressing conceptual problems and facilitating in-class activities, ratherthan lecturing about factual material. Further, by holding students accountable for their pre-classpreparation, the environment would foster the skills necessary for lifelong learning. The invertedclassroom model has many potential benefits that are noted in the literature. Some of theseinclude: make effective use of class time, make good use of technology, accommodate variouslearning styles2,4, help students become self-learners2, foster life-long learning skills4,collaborative learning4, personalize learning5, and increase class time engagement5. Whileprevious research has investigated student perceptions of the inverted classroom2,5, this paperseeks to address the following research questions that are focused on students’ perceivedbenefits: How do students perceive that they benefit from the inverted classroom approach?Additionally, which classroom approach do students prefer and is there a connection to theirperceived benefits?The fall semester course used in this study focused primarily on computer-aided problem solvingusing Excel, MATLAB, and C/C++. Academic integrity, engineering ethics, data analysis, teambuilding, and the engineering design process were also covered. There was a laboratorycomponent to the course, which included exercises from a variety of engineering disciplines. Theinverted classroom model was applied to each course component. The theoretical framework forthe inverted classroom approach is based on Bloom’s taxonomy. Each instructional day wasdivided into two parts: preparation and application. The preparation component, completedbefore class, used lower-level Bloom’s taxonomy skills of remembering and understanding6.The preparation involved pre-class learning activities such as videos, reading assignments, andtutorials. Student completion of the preparation activity was evaluated either through an onlinequiz or through a short assignment submitted at the beginning of class. The applicationcomponent began in the normal class period and included a short presentation, in-class activities,and homework, often requiring students to use higher-level Bloom’s taxonomy skills, such asapplication, analysis, and evaluation.To examine student perceptions, two surveys were administered to the students. Approximately348 students participated in the study. The first survey was given at the end of the first week ofthe term. Similar questions were then given to the students at the end of the semester as part ofthe final course survey. Students were asked which classroom approach they preferred:traditional, inverted classroom, or a mixture of the two. Additionally, the survey asked them torank their opinion of the benefits of the inverted classroom on a 5 point Likert scale. The surveyalso asked the students if they had experienced the inverted classroom in other courses.Data are still being collected and analyzed. As of abstract submission, preliminary data indicatethat 41% of students had taken a class using the inverted classroom prior to this first yearengineering course. Despite the high percentage of students who had experienced the invertedclassroom approach before, only 15% of students indicated it was their preferred classroomapproach. Approximately 75% of students indicated a preference for a mixture of the traditionalclassroom approach and the inverted classroom approach. Further analysis will be performed onthe link between exposure to the inverted classroom approach in other courses and theirpreference in classroom approach. Detailed analysis of the students’ perceived benefits will alsobe included. Additionally, the final survey will be used to investigate how student’s perceptionschange throughout the semester as they complete a course that uses the inverted classroom modelexclusively.References1. J.F. Strayer. “How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation andtask orientation”, Learning Environments Research, vol. 15, 171-193, 2012.2. G. Mason, T.R. Shuman, and K.E. Cook. “Inverting (Flipping) Classrooms – Advantages andChallenges,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society of EngineeringEducation, 2013.3. M.J. Lage, G.J. Platt, and M. Treglia. “Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating anInclusive Learning Environment,” The Journal of Economic Education, vol. 31, no. 1, Winter2000.4. L. Bland. “Applying Flip/Inverted Classroom Model in Electrical Engineering to EstablishLife-Long Learning,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society ofEngineering Education, 2006.5. M.W. Redekopp and G. Ragusa. “Evaluating Flipped Classroom Strategies and Tools forComputer Engineering,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society ofEngineering Education, 2013.6. L.W. Anderson, et al. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Addison WesleyLongman, Inc., Illinois, 2001.
AU  - Krista M. Kecskemety
AU  - Brooke Morin
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Student Perceptions of Inverted Classroom Benefits in a First-Year Engineering Course
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/23054
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--23054
ER  -