Evaluating Blended and Flipped Instruction in Numerical Methods at Multiple Engineering Schools

Abstract

With the literature calling for comparisons among technology-enhanced or active-learning pedagogies, a blended versus flipped instructional comparison was made for numerical methods coursework using three engineering schools with diverse student demographics. This study contributes to needed comparisons of enhanced instructional approaches in STEM and presents a rigorous and adaptable methodology for doing so. Our flipped classroom consisted mostly of in-class active learning, with micro-lectures as needed, and technology used both in and out of class, including for expected pre-class review of new content. Our blended classroom consisted mostly of lecture with some in-class active learning, and technology utilized both in and out of class. However, students were not expected to review new content before class. We compared blended vs. flipped instruction based upon multiple-choice and free-response questions on the final exam as well as the perceived classroom environment. This was done for students as a whole as well as for under-represented minorities (URMs), females, community college transfers, and Pell Grant recipients. Students provided feedback via focus groups and surveys. Upon combining data from the schools, the blended instruction was associated with slightly greater achievement on the multiple-choice questions across various demographics, but the differences were not statistically significant, and the effects were small. Our free-response final exam and classroom environment data aligned, with blended instruction showing more promise at two schools. The students identified demanding expectations with flipped instruction but pointed to benefits, such as enhanced learning or learning processes, preparation, and engagement. These results aligned with our focus group and instructor interview data. Thus, in general, it may be possible to use either instructional approach with the expectation of similar outcomes in final exam scores or the perceived classroom environment, keeping in mind the students qualitatively identified benefits with flipped instruction. Nonetheless, there were some large differences for the schools individually, suggesting further research with different demographics. KeywordsFlipped class, Blended instruction, Numerical Methods Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Cover Page FootnoteThis material is based upon work supported partially by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number xxx, and the Research for Undergraduates Program at School1's College of Engineering. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We wish to thank student1, an undergraduate engineering student, who provided invaluable assistance. We would also like to thank undergraduate student2 and student3 of School1 for compiling the demographics and final examination data. ...

A Peer Review System for BIM Learning

“…For instance, Gillet et al [16] developed a collaborative web-based experimentation environment for engineering education in the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, and Carlson and Sullivan [17] built the Integrated Learning and Teaching laboratory to create an experimental learning environment that enabled students to learn through hands-on experience. Tsai et al [18,19] developed a serious game-based package for disaster-related engineering education, and Clark et al [20] explored the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing blended and flipped instructions for numerical methods courses. Project-based teaching methods have also been implemented in engineering education [21][22][23].…”

Analyzing the use of adaptive learning in a flipped classroom for preclass learning

“…The in‐class activities for students in a flipped classroom may include answering conceptual questions, solving procedural problems, and outlining a project . These can be guided by the instructor and teaching assistants through micro lectures and solving the in‐class problems with their assistance.…”

“…The in-class activities for students in a flipped classroom may include answering conceptual questions, solving procedural problems, and outlining a project. 3 These can be guided by the instructor and teaching assistants through micro lectures and solving the in-class problems with their assistance. Alternatively or in addition, peer instruction 4,5 can be implemented where the students attend mini lectures and then answer conceptual questions.…”

“…In a Numerical Methods course at the University of South Florida, the flipped classroom did not show a statistical or pragmatic difference over the blended classroom. 3 However, more than half of the students pointed out the advantages of flipped classes, such as problem-solving, availability of instructor and TAs to help, and learning from their peers. At the same time, one of the points of resistance 9 in the flipped classroom is getting the students to do the preclass learning.…”

Measuring the Effectiveness of Videos for Concept Understanding in a Flipped Engineering Class

“…Passive students during lectures retain less, while active students perform better [1]. In recent years flipped classrooms have become, to some degree, popular environments for teaching across disciplines, though the investigations in assessing their effectiveness in comparison to the traditional instructions is not conclusive.…”