Jamie Jensen, Department of Biology, MEG Final Report

This report will outline how effectively we met our academic and mentoring objectives.I have listed below both the academic and mentoring objectives put forth in the original proposal and have outlined how they were met or modified over the course of the past two years.

Academic Objective: To test two hypotheses about the causal mechanisms behind the flipped classroom.

The first hypothesis was that the role of the instructor matters more in one phase of instruction than the other. To test this hypothesis, the students and I set up a two treatments, as outlined in the proposal: an active non-­‐flipped section and an identical but flipped active section. Data was gathered from Bio 100 students on learning and attitudes. We found that the instructor’s role is not more influential in one phase than the other and that students performed equally in both sections. Results have been published: 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, 1-­12.

The second hypothesis was actually revised based on a new collaboration established with colleagues at UVU. We have chosen to take a different route than the second hypothesis and test several additional hypotheses. This research is still ongoing. We have run two more treatments and are in the process of analyzing data as well as running additional treatments as part of a UVU HIEGL grant that we received.

Mentoring Objectives:

Phase 1 Student Evidences of Success:

• Students will complete a thorough literature review on the flipped classroom and will submit it for publication in Review of Educational Research, published by AERA.

This objective is still ongoing. Several undergraduates have been working on compiling the evidence for a review. Unfortunately, due to the new nature of this teaching technique, there is not a large amount of literature on the subject and so we have struggled to find enough sources to warrant a review. However, we are continuing to search the literature for these. The following students have been participating in this research: Jace Briggs, Erik Pierce, Tana Sowards, Andrea Johnson, Sterling Rosqvist, and Sam Earnshaw. Erik Pierce has submitted an ORCA proposal to help support his time spent on this task and we hope to have a review paper by the end of the summer.

• Students will write a draft ORCA proposal based on this project

We have been very successful at meeting this objective. Ephraim Taylor wrote and submitted an ORCA proposal specific to the flipped classroom; however, he was not funded. Erik Pierce has a pending ORCA proposal for a review of flipped classroom research and we are awaiting word. In addition, two students who were participating in the flipped classroom research branched out into other projects that interested them and submitted two successful ORCA proposals: Jordan Hatch on the transferability of hypothetico-­‐deductive reasoning skills and Ted Piorczynski on alternative grading schemes of the LCTSR.

Phase 2 Student Evidences of Success:

• Students will complete an entire curriculum to be implemented in a flipped manner.

We have successfully completed this objective. Students have created three curricula to this point: an active non-­‐flipped, active flipped, and non-­‐active flipped. They have helped in preparing visualizations, videos, materials, student guides, etc. These curricula are now being implemented both here at BYU and over at UVU with my collaborators. Students participating in this process included Ted Piorczynski, Jordan Hatch, Jace Briggs, Andrew Schmutz, Dallas Ralph, Ephraim Tayler, Tanner Phillips, and Olivia Brown.

• Students will fully automate (i.e., put on line) the traditional homework assignments for the non-­‐flipped condition

This was done as part of the curriculum developed above.

• Students will have a plan for video recording the inquiry activities in the forward condition to be made available on line to protocol 2 students in the following semester.

As mentioned previously, the second hypothesis was modified as a result of a new grant received in collaboration with UVU, so we did not pursue this objective.

Phase 3 Student Evidences of Success:

• Students will obtain, sort, and organize both pre-­‐test and post-­‐test data
• Students will write up observations of both conditions

Both of these objectives were met in the preparation of a manuscript. While students were heavily involved in the organization of the data, most of the analysis and write-­‐up were performed during the summer and all of our currently participating students did not remain with us during that time. Unfortunately, they did not take the opportunity to see the project into the data analysis phase.

Phase 4 Student Evidences of Success:

• Students will complete a full statistical analysis of the data

As I said above, the statistical analyses took place during the summer and none of the students chose to continue with our lab during that time.

• Students will prepare posters for presentation at the annual SABER meeting Several students did participate in preparing our findings for presentation at the annual SABER meeting, some who originally worked on the project and some new students who took over for students who left. Jace Briggs, Tanner Phillips, and Andrea Johnson were able to attend the SABER 2015 meeting and present both the flipped classroom research along with some other projects on which they worked in the lab.

Phase 5 Student Evidences of Success:

• Students will prepare a manuscript

Unfortunately, due to the demand of the work for the project and the length of time over which it spanned, I was unable to retain the same set of students from start to finish. Thus, none of them appeared on the flipped classroom manuscript. However, several of the students working on the flipped project were able to branch out to other projects in the lab and make it to publication on those. The following manuscripts were produced while working on the flipped classroom project by undergraduates in the lab (their names are bolded):

Heaps, A., Briggs, J., Dawson, T., Hansen, M., and Jensen, J. L. (In press). Deriving population growth models by growing fruit fly colonies. American Biology Teacher.

Jensen, J. L., Neeley, S., Hatch, J. B., & Piorczynski, T. (2015, Online). Learning scientific reasoning skills may be the key to retention in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of College Student Retention. doi: 10.1177/1521025115611616

We are continuing to work on this project. I now have several new students in the lab working on it. Jacob Sowards is currently compiling data from our last implementation and will participate in the analysis of it in the coming few months. Erik Pierce is working on the flipped classroom review paper and is aiming for a summer submission date. I will continue to mentor them through the process and hopefully guide them to the ultimate goal of appearing on a publication.

Budget Use:

Interestingly, most of the students participating in this project did so either voluntarily or with 494R credit. Most students did not want to be paid. Approximately $500 of student wages was spent on Jace Briggs to gather research for the flipped classroom review. In addition, I have currently hired Jacob Sowards and Erik Pierce to continue their work of data compilation and the flipped classroom review.

The $4000 in travel money was used to take Jace Briggs, Andrea Johnson, and Tanner Phillips to the SABER meeting in 2015.