Comparison of Student Performance and Perceptions Across Multiple Course Delivery Modes

The concept of the flipped class has received a great deal of attention in recent years. In a flipped class, students are expected to view lecture material prior to the class period so that time with the instructor can be spent on higher level problem solving and discussions. Previous work has shown the potential for both deeper learning and extended content coverage using the flipped instructional model. This study aims to gage the effect of the flipped pedagogy implemented with learning aids primarily consisting of short, on-line videos. Comparisons of student learning between the different cohorts were made with the use of preand post-tests as well as other assessment mechanisms during the course of the semester. In addition, all students were surveyed at the end of the semester to understand their perceptions of the pedagogy used and provide them an opportunity to offer suggestions. Advantages and limitations of the traditional and flipped course structure are discussed with suggestions for potential improvements. Introduction In a traditional classroom, an instructor will typically introduce new material during class-time through lecture/demonstration or the use of a more active pedagogy. Active learning can be defined as, ‘any instructional method that engages students in the learning process,’ and examples include problem-based learning and collaborative/cooperative learning. These active pedagogies have been found to be effective tools for maximizing student learning and keeping them engaged. The most significant obstacle to using these techniques is the loss of lecture time resulting in a loss in the amount of material that can be covered in class. This issue can be addressed by adopting a flipped or inverted classroom pedagogy. In the flipped classroom, students are required to learn new material prior to coming to class. Learning aids are typically prepared by the instructor and can include videos, tutorials, texts, etc.. Class-time is then spent on active learning activities that focus on knowledge integration and application. Swartz et al. notes that implementation of a flipped classroom is not an all-ornothing proposition – it is possible to flip a portion of a class while retaining other teaching methods throughout. This partial approach was also endorsed by Rockland et al., particularly with respect to the amount of instructor time required to effectively flip an entire course. Learning aids for a flipped course vary, but there is general agreement that they must be short and concise. Students must be informed which materials are needed to be prepared for the classroom activities. In addition, best practices dictate that there must be a “gate” – assessment – to ensure that students arrive to class properly prepared. Unprepared students will have trouble participating in the active learning exercises leading to frustration. The use of in-class minilectures prior to the in-class activities can reduce the impact on those arriving unprepared, as well as providing the instructor with a mechanism to highlight important concepts. Additionally, the mini-lecture gives students an opportunity to ask questions on the material covered in the learning aids prior to attempting the classroom activity. It is important to note some research has shown that the flipped pedagogy is not ideal for achieving lower-level learning outcomes such as knowledge and comprehension. Other studies have shown potentially significant gains for flipped learners. When higher-level learning outcomes such as analysis and synthesis are evaluated, a properly flipped course often demonstrates significant gains over traditional course design. Thus it is critical that any comparison between flipped and non-flipped courses carefully select the points of comparison. Motivation The University of North Dakota is the only institution to offer accredited Bachelor of Science degrees in Mechanical, Chemical, Civil, Electrical, and Petroleum engineering at a distance. Currently, at-a-distance students simply watch recorded lectures asynchronously and complete the same assessments as the on-campus students. The College of Engineering is looking to improve the learning experience for both on-campus and at-a-distance students through the adoption of the flipped classroom pedagogy across the curriculum. The college would like to leverage the existing Tegrity lecture recording system to produce the required learning aids. The proposed implementation of flipped teaching has raised questions about the effect of such a change on both the on-campus and at-a-distance students. Specifically, will the on-campus students benefit from the video lecture material—learning aids—and will the distance students benefit from the in-class activities. Moreover, are the benefits a function of the course level? Method During the Fall 2013 semester, four courses were selected to evaluate the flipped delivery mode for both on-campus and at-a-distance learners in comparison with a more traditional course structure. A list of the courses selected for the study and their corresponding enrollment can be found in Table 1. These courses included an introductory mechanical engineering design course (ME 101), an introductory engineering mechanics course (ENGR 201), a computer programming/numerical methods course (ENGR 200), and a junior-level materials science course (ME 301). All courses included both on-campus and at-a-distance learners. ENGR 200 and ME 301 had both flipped and traditional sections of the course on campus, as well as a flipped format distance section. Only one instructor was used for each course to allow comparisons to be made between the sections without having to control for the effects different instructors may have on student performance. Data collected from each course included student assessment results and an end-of-course, online survey. The survey was optional and anonymous. Students were sent an email with a link. They were asked to click on the link and answer the survey questions. Participants could answer as many questions as they wished and quit at any time without penalty. In addition, preand post-tests were used to evaluate the impact of the pedagogy on student knowledge. The tests were course-specific and only used in the ENGR 201 and ME 301 courses. These tests were created to measure student ability at a variety of knowledge levels from recall to analysis. Table 1: Classes involved with the current study Course Offered Pedagogy Students Enrollment ME 101 Fall 2013 Traditional Campus 34 Fall 2013 Flipped Dist. 35 ENGR 200 Fall 2013 Traditional Campus 33 Fall 2013 Flipped Campus 32 Fall 2013 Flipped Dist. 20 ENGR 201 Fall 2013 Traditional Campus 59 Fall 2013 Flipped Dist. 25 ME 301 Fall 2013 Traditional Campus 35 Fall 2013 Flipped Campus 38 Fall 2013 Flipped Dist. 27 Course Objective ME 101 The objective of this course is to produce students that can  Proficiently use a contemporary 3D drafting program to model existing mechanisms as well as create new ones,  Follow the engineering design process to create a new mechanism to meet specific engineering criteria, and  Work in groups to solve complex problems. Objectives are achieved using a series of demonstrations followed by hands-on activities that require students to utilize a specific set of tools in the drafting software over the first ten weeks of the course. The remaining time is dedicated to an open-ended project that requires groups of students to design a mechanism to solve an engineering problem. The problem includes a set of constraints that must be navigated to be successful. Students are also asked to produce the part drawings needed to construct the mechanism and use the drawings to create a prototype.