Exploring Flipped Classroom Instruction in Calculus III

  • Nicholas H. Wasserman
  • Christa Quint
  • Scott A. Norris
  • Thomas Carr
Article

Abstract

In an undergraduate Calculus III class, we explore the effect of “flipping” the instructional delivery of content on both student performance and student perceptions. Two instructors collaborated to determine daily lecture notes, assigned the same homework problems, and gave identical exams; however, compared to a more traditional instructional approach, the flipped instructor utilized videos to communicate more procedural course content to students out-of-class, with time in-class spent on more conceptual activities and homework problems. Findings from two semesters indicate similar performance on more procedural problems and small to moderate gains for the flipped students (N = 74) over their traditional counterparts (N = 77) on more conceptual exam problems. However, student perceptions remain mixed, with flipped students reporting increased communication during class but traditional students perceiving more effective use of class time, despite the gains in performance for flipped students.

Keywords

Calculus III Flipped instruction Procedural/conceptual performance Student perceptions 

Supplementary material

10763_2015_9704_MOESM1_ESM.doc (138 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 138 kb)

References

  1. Abeysekera, L. & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bergmann, J. & Sams, A. (2009). Remixing chemistry class: two Colorado teachers make vodcasts of their lectures to free up class time for hands-on activities. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(4), 22–27.Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann, J. & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Alexandria, Egypt: ACSD and International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  6. Critz, C. & Knight, D. (2013). Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education. Nurse Educator, 38(5), 210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crouch, C. H. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. doi:10.1119/1.1374249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Day, J. A. & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human-computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420–431. doi:10.1109/TE.2006.879792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E. & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. doi:10.2307/29784281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferreri, S. P. & O’Connor, S. K. (2013). Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group learning course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(1), Article 13. doi:10.5688/ajpe77113.
  11. Findlay-Thompson, S. & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 63–71.Google Scholar
  12. Foertsch, J., Moses, G., Strikwerda, J. & Litzkow, M. (2002). Reversing the lecture/homework paradigm using eTEACH web-based streaming video software. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008). Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. In W. Schafer, M. Dwyer, & V. Gruhn’s (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 777–786). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  15. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hertz, M. B. (2012). The flipped classroom: Pro and con. Retrieved from Edutopia website: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/flipped-classroom-pro-and-con-mary-beth-hertz.
  17. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J. & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43. doi:10.2307/1183338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mazur, E. (1996). Are science lectures a relic of the past? Physics World, 9(9), 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L. & Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(10), 597–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N. & O’Dowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before lecture: a strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ronchetti, M. (2010). Using video lectures to make teaching more interactive. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5(2), 45–48. doi:10.3991/ijet.v5i2.1156.Google Scholar
  23. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  24. Stelzer, T., Brookes, D. T., Gladding, G. & Mestre, J. P. (2010). Impact of multimedia learning modules on an introductory course on electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 78(7), 755–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193. doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Talbert, R. (2012). Learning MATLAB in the inverted classroom [AC 2012-3680]. Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/8/registration/sessions

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas H. Wasserman
    • 1
  • Christa Quint
    • 2
  • Scott A. Norris
    • 3
  • Thomas Carr
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology, Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Urban Assembly Gateway School for TechnologyNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations