CASE STUDY Setting

As part of a large-scale Engineering Research Center’s (ERC)¹ educational activities, faculty are investigating the role of alternative instructional approaches that support constructivist/construc-tionist learning in STEM fields. As one of the approaches under review, a flipped classroom is now being implemented in an undergraduate engineering course.

Electronic Instrumentation is a survey course serving students pursuing engineering and sci-ence majors other than electrical engineering.

The course includes direct hands-on application of theoretical concepts; it typically consists of two

sections of 50-70 students that meet twice a week (two hours each session). Originally, the course had a common two hour lecture offered each week with separate lab times staffed by teaching assistants.

Beginning in 2010, video lectures and supporting materials covering important theories, concepts, and demonstrations related to the course were created and placed online for students to view on their own time in place of the in-class lecture; use of class time was refocused to emphasize hands-on, experiential practice of the course material using student-directed learning in groups of two and four. Under the new model, the instructor and teaching assistants (two to three per section) serve as facilitators within this hand-on learning time, and technology supplements of videos and linked resources are available to students to use outside to direct or support their in-class work.

Student feedback from initial evaluations of pilot use in Fall 2010, Spring 2011, and Fall 2011 assisted in material development. Additional video materials were developed in 2011-12 and all video lectures were made available on YouTube for greater accessibility. Student perceptions of student-directed group learning and video lectures and classroom observations of the implementa-tion of group learning, collected during spring 2012 and fall 2012 semesters are summarized in this chapter.

Participants in the fully implemented case reported here include students (n=138) enrolled in the course during the spring and fall (repli-cate) semesters of 2012, as well as instructional staff. The students were primarily mechanical engineering majors in their third/fourth year of post-secondary study. Over three-quarters of the students were male (83%); three-quarters self-reported their ethnic origin as White. Scores on the Index of Learning Styles (Felder & Silver-man, 1988) revealed that students in both the pilot (Spring 2012) and replicate (Fall 2012) semesters were primarily sensing (75%), visual (86%), and sequential (66%) learners, indicating that they preferred to learn using their physical

Flipping STEM Learning

senses (i.e., through hands-on experience and explicit instruction) via visual diagrams, dem-onstrations or modeling, pictures, graphs, etc. in a scaffolded, hierarchical (sequential) knowledge building manner.

The following data sources were used to col-lect information on the implementation of the flipped classroom:

• Pre and post-student surveys,

• Observations of in-class settings, and

• Student and faculty interviews.

Pre and post-course surveys of students en-rolled in the flipped course were administered in the first and last week of each semester, respec-tively; items assessed students’ overall perceptions of group learning, including the frequency of learning settings (e.g., how often students worked independently, with a partner or group of four for homework, studying, and during class time) and the primary decision-maker for regulating learn-ing activities, as well as the use of online videos in place of in class lectures (e.g., frequency of use, perceptions of use, benefits and barriers toward use). Independent evaluator classroom observations took place throughout the semester to validate students’ involvement in active learning within the collaborative group work setting includ-ing student-student interactions, teacher-student interactions, and group dynamics and the self-regulation processes of goal setting and progress monitoring. Interviews of students, independent of faculty input, were collected post-course to assess overall perceptions of the learning experience, especially the use of the flipped classroom and online videos as lectures.

Building a Flipped Classroom

As in all case studies, the instructional context and philosophy behind the change reveals im-portant patterns. In this case, building a flipped classroom was a process, not an instantaneous

endeavor. With the explosion in the population of engineering students in the last decade, in order to continue a philosophy of learning supported by the studio approach to learning (i.e., lectures and labs occur fluidly as one and is enhanced with the use of mobile studio technology) while also maintaining consistent and sufficient interaction and feedback with 150+ students during active learning, the instructor decided to flip the class. In 2009-10, while consulting and collaborating with colleagues at multiple universities, the instructor began the development and piloting of a series of video lectures on electronic engineering that would support flipping of specific curriculum units.

Developed using Jing software, each revised unit represented key components of content and skills knowledge and were five minutes in length after development and editing; the development process took anywhere from 5-10 hours to record what was two hours of lecture material. After developing the video lectures, they and supporting materials were uploaded and available for use online via Blackboard’s ™ Learning Management System and the course website as deemed appropriate by faculty and/or instructional staff in 2010. To assist in the transfer of knowledge to diverse groups of students, the videos were designed to meet the needs of multiple instructional uses (i.e., limited access, repeat access, sequenced access, and general availability) and student learning (i.e., more than one resource—multiple power points, online handouts of notes for each experiment, and online reading material from multiple websites).

As part of the initial piloting of the flipped classroom units, student use of the out-of-class video lectures was examined to determine students’

actual access and sequencing of the videos and whether the videos met diverse learning pref-erences of students. Results indicated that the videos that delivered quiz review content were accessed, on average, more times (28 times, Fall 2010; 36 times, Spring 2011; 24, Fall 2011) than the videos explaining experiment related concepts (20 times, Fall 2010; 29 times, Spring 2011; 10

Flipping STEM Learning

times, Fall 2011) across the three semesters. These uses suggested that the videos that covered course content, which was perceived as directly relevant to assessment, were valued more by students than were the videos that covered the content pertinent to in-class experiments and related activities. Student interviews confirmed student perceptions of using the flipped lecture format for concept review and understanding in framing and rehearsing information (e.g., “I used videos that focused on example problems to prepare for our quizzes and tests,” “[I use online lectures to] go over sample exam problems,” and “when study-ing for exams, these videos were a perfect way to quickly and efficiently review the most important topics expected on the exam”).

As the flipped classroom was further imple-mented, initial student feedback also identified specific barriers to accessing the online video resources that reflected student assumption that information would be available independently, immediately, and non-sequentially. For instance, students noted one significant barrier was the need to download each video individually; the process was time consuming and frustrating (Con-nor, Berry, Chouikha, Newman, Deyoe, Anaya,

& Brubaker, 2011). Additional barriers included difficulty accessing specific parts of the video to get to information students needed or wanted (Con-nor, et al., 2011). In addition, students reported redundancy in using continuity lead-ins and did not perceive a need for it. As a result of this feedback, the videos were uploaded on YouTube, a format with which most students had prior experience and greater comfort level in using, and functions were established that allowed for easier access where videos could be watched individually, in segments, or in sequence as one long lecture. New videos were developed that addressed topics in a more focused manner that connected with content across assignments. The instructor also added search tags within the YouTube channel to assist in finding information by topic. In addition, the course instructor restructured the course webpage

to provide even more of a user-friendly format for students and has developed a continuous pattern of updating material for the students.

Because students in this class were not elec-trical engineering majors, typically background knowledge and interest waned in learning the material and students needed external support.

As a result, through collaboration with faculty at multiple universities who teach subjects in elec-trical engineering, learning strategies, grounded in Bloom’s Taxonomy, were developed and implemented that would allow students to achieve and addressed topics at three levels: basic ideal theory, simulations, and hands-on experiments, and subsequently develop a useful systems model combining lessons learned at each level. Guided note supplements were developed to provide additional information on assignments, specific documents and videos were linked on the website to show students the process involved in conduct-ing higher level thinkconduct-ing in engineerconduct-ing.

Methods for monitoring use and support for self-directed learning also were addressed. In terms of the active learning aspect of the flipped classroom, original verification of student learning occurred as part of a check-off procedure wherein the teaching assistant (TA) or the instructor signed off on completed assignments. This type of assess-ment, however, decreased the value of learning to learn, the purpose of implementing the flipped classroom. The original checklist assessment was enhanced by implementing a rubric for TAs and the instructor to follow when checking for un-derstanding. The rubric now requires students to discuss their work by answering specific questions that gauge the students’ level of learning; these rubrics are provided ahead of time, so students know what to expect. The instructor also has implemented a questioning aspect based on the teaching strategy of “Think, Pair, Share” (i.e., students think about and come up with an answer to a question, pair with a partner and share their thoughts) into the labs to facilitate their thinking on important concepts while they worked on

as-Flipping STEM Learning

signments, and also served as a form of formative assessment. Using this approach, in the beginning of class, students work together in groups of four to answer questions on the material from the lab assignments and video lectures. This questioning process helps check for student understanding and allows the instructor to provide additional infor-mation on the topics and have a brief discussion on the topics during a 3-5 minute lecture halfway through class time. These strategies also now give the students the in-class time they perceived was important to have in addition to the video lectures for their understanding of concepts.

The Role of Technology: An Aid for Knowledge Rehearsal and Enhancement

As noted previously, the majority of students evi-denced learning styles that were sensing, visual, and sequential. As a result, during development, the format of the flipped lectures was aligned with students’ learning preferences to include observing and interpreting visual and graphic representa-tions of information rather than interpretation of printed text about concepts and ideas. In addition, the flipped online lectures were delivered using a combination of voice, text, and graphical rep-resentations of course content, appropriate for an overall preference for visual learning.

When asked how they used these videos and other resources, students indicated the online video lectures were accessed primarily for extension or rehearsal of knowledge in the content area (See Figure 1). When asked for specific examples, they noted “It [video lectures] was good for studying,”

“It [video lectures] allowed for reviewing a lecture multiple times,” and “Clarified concepts before quizzes.” Students reported that they occasionally watched the online videos prior to the correspond-ing lab as a way to prepare for the assignment, but most viewed them at a later date to rehearse or focus learning. In general, students comments reflected the basic principles behind the flipped

classroom—external access to basic content al-lowed for increased active engagement in class (e.g., “[Watching the videos provided them with]

more time to focus on experiments during lab time,” and “Class time was more productive”).

Most reported using the video lectures “post-hoc”

to consolidate the experiences they had during the hands-on lab and to place these experiences in a theoretical context, that is, most importantly, they flipped knowledge acquisition in a constructivist mode by first experiencing the learning in class and then framing the learned material in theory via the video lectures outside of class.

Participating in and valuing a flipped class-room did appear to be a learned process for these students, reflecting a need to establish a method-ological comfort level. A majority of the students enrolled in the course did not perceive that the use of online videos made the course any more dif-ficult than a traditional lecture-based course. Over time, as instructor experience increased, student preferences for lectures also shifted. At the end of the Spring 2012 pilot course, most students still reported a preference to attend a formal lecture rather than watch online videos; however, students in the Fall 2012 replication class reported a de-crease in their preference in attending a weekly lecture, wanting instead to use online videos.

These findings suggest that as replicated use oc-curs by a faculty member, students demonstrate an emerging acceptance of the flipped classroom approach. This may be related to instructor comfort level with the use of a flipped approach as well as students’ prior experience and their “word-of-mouth” expectations of the classroom. However it should be noted that, after the second full rep-lication while most now wanted online videos, over half (60%) of the students reported that they were still not comfortable using the video lectures for learning (see Table 1). There may be several reasons for this continual hesitance. When que-ried more specifically, many students reported an overall low competency level in actual use of the videos for learning (i.e., the process of selecting

Flipping STEM Learning

and running videos and deciding when to close);

they did not know how to transfer or convey this new information because the tool was not part of their learning repertoire. Their responses to how, if ever, they had used video learning pedagogy in other courses, indicated prior use related to didactic learning approaches (e.g., for rehearsal, supplemental or enhanced learning goals), not for the primary mode of transferring new content (e.g., constructivist acquisition of knowledge).

These prior experiences appear to have served as a barrier to use of videos in a constructivist, flipped approach.

As did their prior use, perceptions of the role of the current flipped classroom in promoting student-centered learning and providing increased opportunity for direct interaction with the instruc-tor varied across students. One-third (33%) of the students strongly supported the process noting that the use of the video lectures enabled self-directed

learning (e.g., “I could choose what I needed to review and when,” “Allowed explanation multiple times,” “watch[ed] at my own pace/schedule,”

and “I could pause the videos and listen again”).

The majority of students (79%), however, did not perceive use of the online lectures to allow for increased interaction with the instructor. They wanted the comfort of lectures and the possibil-ity of direct questioning of instructors during transferal of facts along with the questioning available during the hands-on experience. The need to verify learning via questioning, usually provided through instructor contact during lec-tures, was specifically noted (e.g., “I couldn’t ask questions or get clarification right away,” “Lack of interaction with professor [during videos]”).

This need for more ability to question may be a result of prior learning experiences or increased student expectations in the new approach; as more opportunities to question were provided, more Figure 1. Frequency of online video use

*Numbers represent percentages of participants who responded “often”/“most of the time.”

Flipping STEM Learning

were sought. Observations documented that the instructor and the TAs were present during the scheduled hands-on practice time and were fully engaged and effective in using the practice time in class to address student queries or comments whereas in the past lecture class/lab arrangement there was less direct questioning time.

The Role of Active Learning

Despite students’ mixed perceptions of the pro-cess, positive outcomes related to hands-on col-laborative learning via the use of a technology supported flipped classroom were supported.

Students’ self-reported learning responses and external observations confirmed the presence of a student-centered, collaborative active learning environment within the flipped classroom. As demonstrated in Table 2, students predominantly worked in dyads or teams of four (by merging dyads). Almost all (92%) of the students reported that they regularly worked with a dyad partner, reinforcing skills related to sharing and commu-nicating information needed to complete a task.

In addition, almost half the students experienced the additional collaboration skills needed for larger team efforts; 44% had at least one experi-ence of working with two or more partners, and 37% experienced multi-team interactions when

their dyad merged with other teams to complete tasks. Data indicated that students’ regulation of learning outside of the classroom remained primarily self-directed and autonomous; 70% of students worked independently on “homework”

that now included watching videos and accessing online resources. However, it is noteworthy that 30% of the students did move their collaborative partnership outside the classroom and shared

“homework” tasks. This extension to outside preparation was primarily contained within the dyad partnership. Some portions of this collab-orative effort also continued into preparation for assessment tasks; 26% of the students maintained their dyad collaboration even when preparing for tests and quizzes.

The freedom to redesign the physical class-room when moving to a flipped classclass-room also is important to note. Class observations and student responses revealed that the lab “looked” like a professional setting with problem-solving teams working on assigned tasks or problems. This abil-ity to mock up or model professional roles helps to establish professional values needed when in the work place. The majority of the students indicated their collaborative team predominantly decided together on the specific activities required to regulate learning, including goal development, division of tasks, completion of lab write-ups, Table 1. Perceptions of online video usage*

Statement % Post

(n=138)

I prefer a formal weekly lecture instead of online videos. 66

Taking a course using online videos was more difficult than taking a traditional lecture-based course. 40

I (will be) was comfortable when using online videos for learning. 38

Taking a course with online videos allowed me to self- direct my learning. 33

Taking a course with online videos provided more opportunity to learn content during class/lab. 20 Taking a course with online videos allowed for increased interaction with the instructor during class/lab. 19

I am the type that learns well with online videos. 18

The skills I developed through online video resources are valued by companies I am likely to work for. 16

*Numbers represent percentages of participants who responded “Strongly Agree”/“Agree” on a 6 point Likert-type survey.

Flipping STEM Learning

etc.; all of these skills are needed for workplace problem-solving (See Table 3). Students were aware of the value of this part of the learning pro-cess, noting that the new structure enabled them

etc.; all of these skills are needed for workplace problem-solving (See Table 3). Students were aware of the value of this part of the learning pro-cess, noting that the new structure enabled them