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. ...

No abstract

Flipped instruction in an undergraduate numerical methods course in the online, remote environment during the COVID‐19 pandemic was conducted with and without the use of adaptive‐learning lessons for pre‐class preparation. This comparison was made to explore potential differences with and without adaptive software relative to exam and concept inventory performance and student perceptions of the classroom environment, learning and motivation, and benefits and drawbacks. Student perceptions were gathered via the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) and a survey designed to capture feedback specific to flipped instruction. The analysis was made possible by a current NSF grant to study adaptive learning in the flipped classroom at three universities and extensive prior research with the flipped classroom and adaptive learning by the authors. Results gathered in the online flipped classroom with adaptive learning suggested positive changes in the following: classroom environmental perceptions, preference for flipped instruction, perceived responsibility imposed, motivation for independent learning, and perceived learning. Furthermore, based on an open‐ended question, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of students who experienced load, burden, or stressors in the online flipped classroom when adaptive learning was available versus not. Multiple‐choice exam and concept‐inventory results were slightly higher with adaptive lessons (although not significantly so), with the most promising results occurring for Pell grant recipients. The emerging medical education literature has suggested that adaptive learning and flipped instruction will be key to post‐pandemic education. The present article begins advocacy for adaptive learning with flipped instruction in engineering education.

Introductory courses in microelectronic circuits are integral components to electrical and computer engineering undergraduate curriculums. The nature of the material is well‐suited for the incorporation of simulation tools to enhance student understanding of core concepts. SPICE is an electrical circuit simulation tool that has been widely adopted for industrial applications and education. In many instances, engineering instructors have used SPICE‐based simulation tools for homework problems, laboratory exercises, and course projects. Although generally accepted as beneficial to electronics education, the use of SPICE simulation tools is typically restricted to these types of assignments and not heavily used for classroom activity. In this paper, we present a novel method for incorporating SPICE simulation tools into the classroom. Specifically, in a summer 2017 microelectronics course, we used simulation tools for all aspects of the course, incorporating simulation into lecture, in‐class active learning, as well as assignments, and projects. To evaluate this approach, we carried out a rigorous, comprehensive study of this pedagogical approach on student learning, and perspectives using a variety of direct and indirect assessment methods. The results across all measures showed substantial benefits for students to using this methodology and positive responses to the active learning. Beyond microelectronics and other electrical and computer engineering courses, this approach can be applied to other STEM courses where complex systems are studied and simulation tools for these systems are readily accessible to students.

Engineering programs must assess students' abilities to master "criteria 3 a-k." Skills such as teamwork, problem solving, design, and ethical understanding entail learning various processes; hence, assessing these outcomes is better accomplished by focusing on the process rather than the result. Methods for observing students' performance, such as 100 percent behavioral observation, are ideal but expensive.We extend work sampling, an economic industry-based alternative, to observe cognitive and behavioral processes. Specifically, we describe a work sampling methodology to assess students engaged in teamwork. We then determine attributes of teamwork, establish target time proportions using 100 percent observation, and statistically compare the targets to proportions obtained from work sampling intervals to determine the effective interval. The robustness of work sampling is tested in four learning environments. Results indicate that sampling provides a statistically valid alternative for assessing teamwork. However, when observing design and ethical understanding processes, additional research is needed to make work sampling viable.