1. Blended Learning Strategies in a First- Year Engineering Program AMBER KEMPPAINEN, AMBER@MTU.EDU MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY HOUGHTON, MI Keywords: first-year, blended learning, online learning, flipped learning, video Funded by the Jackson Center for Teaching and Learning

2. Why? “Strategic Flipping” of a portion of the lecture material. The main goals are to: ◦Provide additional class time for active learning exercises and collaborative activities. ◦Provide a short introduction to the lecture material outside of class. ◦Introduce basic concepts necessary for classroom activities. This is implemented through short 2-7 minute videos and quizzes. Improve Instruction and Active Learning Topics# Videos Spreadsheets, Unit Conversions, and Statistics7 Technical Communication and Project Management3 Programming (MATLAB)17 Spatial Visualization6

3. When? Spring 2014 Test Video Creation, Pilot Study Fall 2014 Video and Quiz Creation, Beta Test Fall 2015 Full scale Implementation Spring 2014 Received Jackson Center Blended Learning Grant to develop video content for ENG1101 Created 5 demonstration videos on MATLAB content Deltas in test scores were calculated Fall 2014 Created additional videos and quizzes (33) Implemented in ENG1101 (3 comparison groups) Analyzed self-reported video watching and test scores Analyzed math placement with video watching habits Fall 2015 Implemented videos and quizzes in all sections of ENG1101 Timeline

4. Where? Diverse student population Approximately 1000 first-year students per year Variety of experience and familiarity with computers Concurrently placed into one of five different math groups (Calc I, Calc I+, Calc II, Calc III, Linear Algebra/Differential Equations) Historically, students in Calc II or higher outperform students in Calc I and Calc I+ in their ENG1101 course, although Calc II material is not used in ENG1101 Michigan Tech First-Year Engineering Program

5. What? Base: Fall 2013 N = 534, 5 instructors 9/13 sections Assigned Reading All material covered in class Group 1: Fall 2014 N=183 1 instructor 3 sections Assigned Reading Videos not encouraged All material covered in class Same as BASE 2013 Group 2: Fall 2014 N = 308 2 instructors 5 sections Assigned Reading Videos assigned and encouraged Video material not covered in class Group 3: Fall 2014 N=293 3 instructors 5 sections Assigned Reading Videos and quizzes assigned and encouraged Video material not covered in class In Groups 2 and 3, student performance measured by course metrics increases with the amount of time students spent watching the videos. Students who were not actively encouraged to watch the videos (Group 1) do not show this increase. Group 3 had the greatest improvement on topical performance in an identical final exam as compared to the Fall 2013 Base Group. Comparison Groups for Video Implementation

6. Prognosis? Looking at video viewing habits and performance: Some lecture coverage (through video) allows for more in-class problem solving Students will watch the videos when assigned Students who watch more videos have statistically significant higher grades (p<0.05) than those who do not. Looking math placement on performance: ◦Students who are placed in Calc II or higher perform better in ENG1101, however, a two-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni post hoc test indicates that this performance is independent of video watching behavior. ◦There is no cumulative effect on students from math placement and video watching habits. ◦These blended learning methods work equally well for all math levels. Currently implementing full-scale in all sections of ENG1101 Additional material and advice on “strategically flipping” the classroom or blending learning methods would be welcome.