Chapter 1
Direct Comparison of Flipping in the Large Lecture Environment Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on April 17, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001
Cherie L. Yestrebsky* Chemistry Department, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816, United States *E-mail:
[email protected] Very large lecture-based classes are a commonly used teaching mode at high-population universities. To ascertain the effectiveness of ‘flipping the classroom’ in these classes, a study focused on the change in the presentation mode: in-person lectures versus recorded lectures posted online with problem solving during class time. The study involved two very large classes (320 and 415 students) of second-semester general chemistry students taught by the same instructor. One class was taught in the traditional lecture format normally used within the department with example problems posted online. The other class was taught using a flipped protocol and those students accessed all lectures online with class time devoted to instructor-led examples and small group problem solving. Final grades were compared between the two groups and results showed that students in the flipped class had a greater percentage of high grades (‘A’ and ‘B’ grades) compared to the control group. The control group had more ‘C’ or average grades but the two groups had almost identical percentages of low grades (‘D’ and ‘F’). This suggests that the average performing students were aided by this teaching method compared to the traditional teaching format. Surveys that were administered to each class at the end of the semester revealed that students in the flipped class found the online instruction valuable; 86% watched at least some recorded lectures more than once and 68% responded that they would take another class using this teaching method. The control class expressed a high evaluation of the in-class instruction but did not express © 2016 American Chemical Society Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
a high evaluation of the example problems and slides (without recorded lecture) provided online.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on April 17, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001
Introduction The concept of ‘flipping the classroom’ or ‘flipping’ has received considerable interest in recent years (1–4). The basic concept refers to a classroom where students reverse the normal lecture-class routine of listening and observing an instructor during class time with homework and practice outside of class. In a flipped classroom, students listen to and watch the videotaped lecture or other instruction on their own, often via some form of access to the internet, and class time is used for discussion, independent work with teacher guidance, group work, peer instruction, teacher led examples, etc. Much of the published literature on the topic focuses on examples in relatively small classrooms of less than 50 students while far fewer publications focus on college-level, large lecture course studies of this mode of teaching. The passive learning environment of a large science lecture presents fertile ground for testing better methods of engaging students. Motivated instructors can certainly engage many students but the interaction with students in this environment is limited. Therefore, if a student has a question, he/she is likely too intimidated to interrupt the lecture and relatively few will reach out to the instructor during office hours. Flipping is an effort to engage students in active learning, which requires learners to take some responsibility for their own learning experience. College-level studies have shown reductions in DFW grades (5–7) and benefits in final grades of students in courses that involved varying levels of a flipped classroom environment for moderate- and small-sized chemistry courses; however, literature is lacking for flipping the larger classes of over 300 students. Schneider (2015) (8) showed that students liked the flipped classroom environment but there was no improvement in their grades. Other studies have shown little or no benefit as measured in student performance or student opinion of flipping (9) and not all subject areas may benefit from this change in teaching. This study seeks to evaluate the basic concept of flipping in a large chemistry classroom by using a side-by-side comparison of two very large classes, one with 320 students and the other with 415. The intent was to compare the final grades of the two classes, keeping all materials and actions the same with the exception of an in-class lecture versus recorded lectures available through the university’s Webcourses (Learning Management System) site. The goal in this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of flipping to improve the DFW rate for this course.
Methods Description of the Classes This study took place at the University of Central Florida (UCF) Chemistry Department. UCF is a large public institution with over 63,000 students, 86% of whom are undergraduates. Many of our undergraduate students transfer to UCF from regional state colleges. 2 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on April 17, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001
Fundamentals of Chemistry II is the second-semester course in a two-semester sequence of the pre-requisite chemistry courses for most science, health, and many engineering majors. The level of college experience of the students in this class varies as shown in Table 1 with sophomore, junior, and senior level students comprising approximately equal populations in the class and with freshman students making up only 8-10% of the class. Fundamentals of Chemistry I is a prerequisite course that introduces students to the theories of chemistry and some simple calculation problems, but is not as mathematics-dependent as the second semester course. Based on past student perception of instruction survey comments, students find the math in Fundamentals of Chemistry II challenging and believe that more examples and help with problem solving would improve their grades. It is not uncommon to have completely full classes with as many as 450 students enrolled at the beginning of the semester. The environment is not ideal for significant interaction with the professor, particularly during lecture. It is taught in a large stadium-seating auditorium using a computer projection onto one or more very large screens, depending on which auditorium is used, with the instructor using a wireless microphone for communication. This does allow for some instructor movement about the classroom, but clarity of voice can diminish due to limited microphone range. There are opportunities for questions from students during class; however, the interaction is limited. Because the auditorium is large, the distance between the instructor and many of the students can cause those students to feel dissociated from interaction with the class. Homework problems are suggested and examples are worked in class by the instructor. Further examples are often uploaded to the class website on the university Webcourses learning management system, as are copies of the lecture slides. The classes are 50 or 75 minutes, depending on the scheduled days (Monday/Wednesday/Friday or Tuesday/ Thursday) that the classes are taught. Grades are determined by four multiple choice exams, the best 10 of 14 quizzes, a final exam (ACS two-semester general chemistry 2011 version), and up to 3% attendance credit. The course is known for having a high DFW rate, so outside the classroom, help is available to students including supplemental instruction, group tutoring through the Student Academic Resource Center, and a department-supported Chemistry Tutoring Center. In order to understand the effect of flipping, the researchers changed only one aspect of the flipped class and kept all other variables constant. Therefore, only the lecture delivery mode was changed for the test class and problem solving periods were used to replace lectures during class time. The specific problems addressed in the flipped class were uploaded to the class website for the traditional class to access so that both classes had the ability to review and study the same worked examples. The traditional and flipped classes had 320 and 415 enrolled students, respectively. Students registered for the classes prior to knowledge of the study and were comprised of overwhelmingly science and engineering majors. The efficacy of using the flipped instructional method was evaluated using two classes of very high enrollment, taught by the same instructor, with only one variable changed, and comparing 1) quiz and exam grades, 2) distribution of final grades, and 3) responses from end-of-semester surveys. Final grades were assigned based on a 3 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on April 17, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001
standard 10-point grading scale of 90-100% = A; 80-89.9% = B; 70-79.9% = C; 60-69.9% = D; and below 60% = F. Percentages are calculated based on total points earned divided by total possible class points (800) multiplied by 100. The slides used for the flipped class were identical to those used in the traditional class with the exception of the voice-recording (using a plug-in microphone headset) over PowerPoint slides. One could argue both for and against video recording, but the time and location flexibility provided in preparing slides with voice recording was an important benefit for the instructor. The slides and time periods spent on each chapter were the same. The problems worked out during class time for the flipped class were made available to the students in the control class. The quizzes and exams were of equal difficulty, covering the same topics from the chapters with the same number of applied and conceptual problems. Based on the idea that long modules would lead to bored listeners who might procrastinate listening to lectures, all recorded modules were 18 minutes or less. This equated to one 50-minute lecture for the traditional class and three to four recorded modules for the flipped class for each class period. The recorded modules were then uploaded to the course website. Only the flipped class could access the recorded lectures but both classes could access the slides without the recorded lecture. Each chapter was covered in seven to twelve recorded modules. Dates were assigned for students to complete specific modules and the course calendar was used to communicate these dates. During class time, either the instructor or the students (in small groups or individual) in the flipped class worked on end-of-chapter problems from the course text that corresponded to the material covered in the appropriate lectures. Of the time spent on problem-solving in class, approximately 40% was instructor-led, 40% small-group, and 20% individual work.
Surveys During a two-week period near the end of the semester, both classes completed Student Perception of Instruction (SPOI) surveys, administered online and mandated by the university. The SPOI surveys include general questions regarding professionalism of the instructor, timeliness of assignments and grading, respectfulness of the instructor towards students, and open-ended questions for the students to express their likes and dislikes of various aspects of the course. A second survey was developed specifically for this study and was administered to both classes during class time at the end of the semester. This survey queried students on instructional components that were specific to these courses, including the usage of online materials (both recorded slides for the flipped class and the materials posted for the traditional class), students’ anticipated grade for the class, satisfaction with the course format, and other general likes and dislikes of the course and/or its format. There was no extra credit or incentive offered to students for completing the survey and no penalties for those who did not participate. Participation was voluntary and students’ survey data were aggregated into the data for the study as a whole. 4 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Student demographics and academic ability levels (as indicated by aptitude test scores) for each of the sections were compared from data obtained from the student information system (SIS).
Results
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on April 17, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001
Student Demographics Academic experience of the students enrolled in these classes is distributed mostly across the sophomore, junior, and senior level with 8-10 percent at the freshman level. Table 1 illustrates the breakdown of student academic level.
Table 1. Academic level of classes (%) Traditional (N=320)
Flipped (N=415)
Non-degree seeking student
0
2
Freshman
8
10
Sophomore
32
36
Junior
32
28
Senior
27
21
Table 2 illustrates the proportion of males and females in each section. Both sections of chemistry had a higher proportion of females, but were similar overall.
Table 2. Gender distribution of classes (%). Gender
Traditional (N=320)
Flipped (N=415)
Male
46
40
Female
54
60
Table 3 lists the distribution of ethnicity, which varied slightly for each of the courses, with the flipped class enrolling more Asians, while the traditional section had slightly more Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and White/ Caucasian students. 5 Muzyka and Luker; The Flipped Classroom Volume 2: Results from Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.
Table 3. Ethnicity distribution of both classes (%).
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on April 17, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1228.ch001
Ethnicity
Traditional (N=320)
Flipped (N=415)
Asian
8
18
Black/African American
12
9
Hispanic/Latino
23
20
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
0
0.2
White/Caucasian
52
48
Multiracial
4
4
Other
1
1
This research did not examine differences in demographics. Students were unaware that they were registering for a flipped or traditional course and it is possible that the disparity in ethnicity is due to day or time of each class and how they fit with the particular student’s schedule. This, however, is outside the scope of this research.
Students’ Prior Academic Ability Measures Table 4 illustrates the differences across the two classes in prior academic ability measures—namely, college entrance exam scores (SAT and ACT) and high school grade point average (GPA). Independent t-test analyses comparing these averages across the two classes found no significant differences (p
