Flipped Pre-Calculus for Engineers: An Active Learning Course Transformation

References

• Abell, M. L., L. Braddy, D. Ensley, L. Ludwig, and H. Soto. MAA instructional practices guide: Guide to evidence-based instructional practives in undergraduate mathematics. Mathematical Association of America. 2018. https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/InstructPracGuide_web.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, C. and A. Dove. 2018. Calculus students flipped out: The impact of flipped learning on calculus students’ achievement and perceptions of learning. PRIMUS. 28(6): 600–615. doi:10.1080/10511970.2017.1332701.
   Google Scholar
• Albalawi, A. S. 2018. The effect of using flipped classroom in teaching calculus on students’ achievements at University of Tabuk. International Journal of Research in Education and Science. 4(1): 198–207. doi:10.21890/ijres.383137.
   Google Scholar
• Apkarian, N., J. Bowers, M. E. O'Sullivan, and C. Rasmussen. 2018. A case study of change in the teaching and learning of precalculus to calculus 2: What we are doing with what we have. PRIMUS. 28(6): 528–549. doi:10.1080/10511970.2017.1388319.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R., M. Russell, and C. Rawn. 2013. Engineering introduction in pre-calculus courses. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings. 30, doi:10.18260/1-2–19526.
   Google Scholar
• Bergmann, J. and A. Sams. 2012. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, J. and M. Verleger. 2013. The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings. 30: 1–18. doi:10.18260/1-2–22585.
   Google Scholar
• Bonwell, C. C. and J. A. Eison. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University School of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D. 2015. Insights from the MAA national study of college calculus. The Mathematics Teacher. 109(3): 179–185.
   Google Scholar
• Bressoud, D. M., M. P. Carlson, V. Mesa, and C. Rasmussen. 2013. The calculus student: insights from the Mathematical Association of America national study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 44(5): 685–698.
   Google Scholar
• CBMS. 2016. Active Learning in Post-Secondary Mathematics Education. https://www.cbmsweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/active_learning_statement.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cmu.edu. 2020. Exam Reflection Sheet. https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/examwrappers/examwrappers-docs/MathExamWrapper.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, S., S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 11: 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
   Google Scholar
• Garber, N. J. and L. A. Hoel. 2009. Traffic and Highway Engineering. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, P. J., J. Kim, and R. Rubin. 2014. How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference, pp. 41–50. doi:10.1145/2556325.2566239.
   Google Scholar
• 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: 64–74. doi:10.1119/1.18809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herreid, C., N. Schiller, K. Herreid, and C. Wright. 2014. Case study: A chat with the survey monkey: case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching. 44(1): 62–66. doi:10.2505/4/jcst14_044_01_75.
   Google Scholar
• Lage, M. J., G. J. Platt, and M. Treglia. 2000. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education. 11(31): 30–43. doi:10.1080/00220480009596759.
   Google Scholar
• Laursen, S. L. and C. Rasmussen. 2019. I on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 5(1): 129–146. doi:10.1007/s40753-019-00085-6.
   Google Scholar
• Lo, C. K., K. F. Hew, and G. Chen. 2017. Toward a set of design principles for mathematics flipped classrooms: A synthesis of research in mathematics education. Educational Research Review. 22: 50–73. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovett, M. C. 2013. Make exams worth more than the grade. In M. Kaplan, N. Silver, D. LaVague-Manty, and D. Meizlish (Eds.), Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy, pp. 18–52. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
   Google Scholar
• Maciejewski, W. 2016. Flipping the calculus classroom: an evaluative study. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications. 35(4): 187–201. doi:10.1093/teamat/hrv019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mevarech, Z. and B. Kramarski. 2003. The effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students’ mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 73: 449–471. doi:10.1348/000709903322591181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neubert, J., D. Worley, and N. Kaabouch. 2011. Using undergraduate mentors to deliver engineering content to calculus for increased persistence in engineering. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings. 28, doi:10.18260/1-2-18972.
   Google Scholar
• Otero, V. K. 2015. Nationally scaled model for leveraging course transformation with physics teacher preparation: The Colorado learning assistant model. In E. Brewe and C. Sandifer (Eds), Recruiting and Educating Future Physics Teachers: Case Studies and Effective Practices, pp. 107–115. College Park, MD: American Physical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, S. J. 2009. Longitudinal study of student conceptual understanding in electricity and magnetism. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. 5: 20110–20110. doi:10.1103/physrevstper.5.020110.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education. 93(3): 223–231. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C., N. Apkarian, J. E. Hagman, E. Johnson, S. Larsen, and D. Bressoud. 2019. Characteristics of precalculus through calculus 2 programs: Insights from a national census survey. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 50(1): 98–111. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.50.1.0098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, M. D. and S. A. Reid. 2016. Impact of the flipped classroom on student performance and retention: a parallel controlled study in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 93(1): 13–23. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. H. 1998. Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education. 4: 1–94. doi:10.1016/s1080-9724(99)80076-7.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, Z., K. Xie, and L. Anderman. 2018. The role of self-regulated learning in students’ success in flipped undergraduate math courses. The Internet and Higher Education. 36: 41–53. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tague, J. and J. Czocher. 2016. A theoretical approach to ensuring instructional and curricular coherence in the flipped classroom model of a differential equations course. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 2(2): 223–245. doi:10.1007/s40753-016-0028-z.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman, N. H., C. Quint, S. Norris, and T. Carr. 2017. Exploring flipped classroom instruction in calculus III. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 15(3): 545–568. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9704-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggins, G. and J. McTighe. 2000. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
   Google Scholar