Mathematics for Computer Science: A Flipped Classroom with an Optional Project

Yehudit Judy Dori; Zehavit Kohen; Brian Rizowy

doi:10.29333/ejmste/9149

Full Text (PDF)

Yehudit Judy Dori ¹ ² ^* , Zehavit Kohen ¹ , Brian Rizowy ¹

More Detail

¹ Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, ISRAEL² School of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

The Mathematics for Computer Science mandatory course was conducted in a flipped classroom (FC) setting with an optional, voluntary, project-based learning (PBL) component. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of studying in an FC setting, with and without PBL, on students’ problem-solving performance, conceptual understanding, and affective perceptions. Participants were 374 undergraduate freshmen and sophomores, of whom 20% elected to participate in an optional probability PBL. The most significant finding was the reinforcement of collaboration, as reflected by teamwork on problem solving during the FC class time. The PBL students demonstrated an advantage in their performance over their peers in probability—the topic they explored, and in their positive responses regarding studying in the FC setting, with an emphasis on the collaborative learning component. The research demonstrates the importance of active engagement in a technology-based environment in which STEM undergraduate students solve problems and implement projects.

Keywords

flipped classroom
teamwork
active learning
project-based learning
higher education

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 16, Issue 12, December 2020, Article No: em1915

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9149

Publication date: 05 Nov 2020

Article Views: 3368

Article Downloads: 1554

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

ABET (2019). General criterion 3. Student outcomes. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2018-2019. Retrieved from https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2018-2019/#GC3
Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
Aşıksoy, G., & Özdamlı, F. (2016). Flipped Classroom adapted to the ARCS Model of motivation and applied to a physics course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(6), 1589-1603. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1251a
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers and Education, 78, 227-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement, Computers and Education, 94, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day (pp. 120-190). Washington DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education (pp. 6219). Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6219/view
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 and 4), 369-398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_8
Chang, L. C., & Lee, G. C. (2010). A team-teaching model for practicing project-based learning in high school: Collaboration between computer and subject teachers. Computers & Education, 55(3), 961-969.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.007
Chang, Y., Song, A., & Fang, R. (2018). Integrating ARCS model of motivation and PBL in flipped classroom: a case study on a programming language. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1631. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/97187
Chen, X., Breslow, L., & DeBoer, J. (2018). Analyzing productive learning behaviors for students using immediate corrective feedback in a blended learning environment. Computers & Education, 117, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.013
Crawley, E. F., Brodeur, D. R., & Soderholm, D. H. (2008). The education of future aeronautical engineers: Conceiving, designing, implementing and operating. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(2), 138-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9088-4
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: a review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 141-151.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9
Dori, Y. J. (2003). A framework for project-based assessment in science education. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards (pp. 89-118). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts?. The journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.‏
Dori, Y. J., Hult, E., Breslow, L., & Belcher, J. W. (2007). How much have they retained? Making unseen concepts seen in a freshman electromagnetism course at MIT. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(4), 299-323.‏
Dori, Y. J., & Silva, A. (2010). Assessing international product design and development graduate courses: The MIT-Portugal program. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(2), 1-30.‏
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2006). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 34(1), 65-65. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2006.1679078
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262-273. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20204
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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Golde, M. F., McCreary, C. L., & Koeske, R. (2006). Peer instruction in the general chemistry laboratory: Assessment of student learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 804. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p804
Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089-1113.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0
He, W., Holton, A. J., & Farkas, G. (2018). Impact of partially flipped instruction on immediate and subsequent course performance in a large undergraduate chemistry course. Computers & Education, 125, 120-131.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.020
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Huang, N. T. N., Chiu, L. J., & Hong, J. C. (2016). Relationship among students’ problem solving attitude, perceived value, behavioral attitude, and intention to participate in a science and technology contest. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(8), 1419-1435.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9665-y
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. d. M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129
Kohen, Z. (2019). Informed integration of IWB technology, incorporated with exposure to varied mathematics problem-solving skills: its effect on students' real-time emotions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(8), 1128-1151.
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759
Lehman, E., Leighton, F. T., & Meyer, A. R. (2017). A textbook for the MIT course Mathematics for Computer Science. Retrieved from https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring17/mcs.pdf
Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2
Lundin, M., Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Peterson, L. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: a systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-30.‏ https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0101-6
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760-769. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760
Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018). Exploring the impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on active collaborative learning in a social web-based environment. Computers & Education, 123, 41-52. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.012
Muir, T., & Geiger, V. (2016). The affordances of using a flipped classroom approach in the teaching of mathematics: a case study of a grade 10 mathematics class. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0165-8
Muir, T., Beswick, K., Callingham, R., & Jade, K. (2016). Experiencing teaching and learning quantitative reasoning in a project-based context. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(4), 479-501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0176-0
National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science education. (S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, & H. A. Schweingruber, Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science and Technology Council. (2013). Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education 5-year strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
OCW.MIT.EDU.6.042 (2015). Mathematics for Computer Science Spring 2015. Retrieved from https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-spring-2015/
Opdecam, E., Everaert, P., Van Keer, H., & Buysschaert, F. (2014). Preferences for team learning and lecture-based learning among first-year undergraduate accounting students. Research in Higher Education, 55(4), 400-432.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9315-6
Reis, R. C. D., Isotani, S., Rodriguez, C. L., Lyra, K. T., Jaques, P. A., & Bittencourt, I. I. (2018). Affective states in computer-supported collaborative learning: Studying the past to drive the future. Computers & Education, 120, 29-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.015
Seman, L. O., Hausmann, R., & Bezerra, E. A. (2018). On the students’ perceptions of the knowledge formation when submitted to a project-based learning environment using web applications. Computers & Education, 117, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.001
Shi, Y., Ma, Y., MacLeod, J., & Yang, H.H. (2019). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in flipped classroom instruction: A meta-analysis of the empirical research. Journal of Computers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00142-8
Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.003
Wang, K., & Zhu, C. (2019). MOOC-based flipped learning in higher education: students’ participation, experience and learning performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 33.‏ https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0163-0
Wasserman, N. H., Quint, C., Norris, S. A., & Carr, T. (2017). Exploring flipped classroom instruction in Calculus III. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(3), 545-568.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9704-8
Webber, K. L. (2012). The use of learner-centered assessment in US colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 201-228.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9245-0
Wiggins, B. L., Eddy, S. L., Wener-Fligner, L., Freisem, K., Grunspan, D. Z., Theobald, E. J., … Crowe, A. J. (2017). ASPECT: A survey to assess student perspective of engagement in an active-learning classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0244

How to cite this article

APA

Dori, Y. J., Kohen, Z., & Rizowy, B. (2020). Mathematics for Computer Science: A Flipped Classroom with an Optional Project. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1915. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9149

Vancouver

Dori YJ, Kohen Z, Rizowy B. Mathematics for Computer Science: A Flipped Classroom with an Optional Project. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(12):em1915. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9149

AMA

Dori YJ, Kohen Z, Rizowy B. Mathematics for Computer Science: A Flipped Classroom with an Optional Project. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(12), em1915. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9149

Chicago

Dori, Yehudit Judy, Zehavit Kohen, and Brian Rizowy. "Mathematics for Computer Science: A Flipped Classroom with an Optional Project". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2020 16 no. 12 (2020): em1915. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9149

Harvard

Dori, Y. J., Kohen, Z., and Rizowy, B. (2020). Mathematics for Computer Science: A Flipped Classroom with an Optional Project. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1915. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9149

MLA

Dori, Yehudit Judy et al. "Mathematics for Computer Science: A Flipped Classroom with an Optional Project". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 16, no. 12, 2020, em1915. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9149