Student Satisfaction in a Flipped Classroom Model in an
Upper Division Soil Mechanics Course
Dr. Laura Sullivan-Green
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA
Introduction
This work evaluates the success of a Flipped Classroom Model (FCM) in an upper
division soil mechanics course in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at San
José State University (SJSU). A 4.5-week segment of the 16-week course employed the FCM,
which consisted of brief videos to be watched prior to attending class that presented the key
information to learn, followed by collaborative activities completed in the classroom during
scheduled class times that covered application of the material in the videos. Preliminary results
are mixed, with some aspects received positively from the students, but also some areas that
need improvement. Based on the preliminary data collected, the FCM has many advantages to
the traditional lecture format and shows the potential for improving overall student satisfaction
and success. The data also indicates that there is improvement that can be done to the course
that will enhance student satisfaction, including adding more videos that demonstrate
examples, improving video quality and adjusting the collaborative activities.
Background
There are a number of studies that point to the need for pedagogical reform of the
college STEM curriculum including Shaping the Future [1]; Transforming Undergraduate
Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology [2]; the Engineer of 2020 [3][4];
Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics [5]; Linking Evidence and Promising Practice in STEM Undergraduate Education [6],
and Reinventing Undergraduate Education [7]. These reports recommend that college faculty
change their methods to move away from instructor-centered, lecture-based instruction and
move towards student-centered, active learning pedagogy. These modern pedagogies also play
a significant role in success of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields [8].
San José State University (San Jose, CA), located in the high-tech Silicon Valley, is
currently ranked as the sixth most ethnically diverse institution for Master’s degree conferring
institutions in the West by U.S. News & World Report [9]. The student body in the College of
Engineering also reflects this diversity, with over 35% of the student body identifying with an
ethnic group other than white (23.5%) or Asian (41.4%). Underrepresented minority students,
including women, in engineering do better in active learning modalities, which are studentcentric, collaborative and exercise-driven. These students experience higher pass rates, higher
average final grades and higher graduation rates [10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Teachingcentered practices that focus on lecturing and passive participation by the students tend to
push students, especially minority and under-represented students, out of STEM fields. Several
studies have shown that lack of quality teaching and a desire for a more interesting education
were the primary reasons students left STEM [17][18][19]. Active and collaborative learning
methods, which are student centered pedagogical practices, are linked to higher grades and
educational gains [20][21][22][23][24]. There is a large body of research that shows that
student learning in STEM fields can be improved when instructors move from a teachercentered approach to a student-centered, interactive approach [25][26][27][28].
The FCM integrates technology with active learning techniques. In a flipped classroom,
the standard class lecture is replaced with a student-focused approach that involves the use of
strategies implemented outside of the classroom [29]. Students use electronic media to learn
1
about the content before class, allowing them to learn at their own pace and come better
prepared for in-class work. This approach is shown to have a positive effect on student learning
outcomes, especially in STEM courses [30]. High need students also see improvements with
these active learning methods [31]. These improvements increase academic self-confidence,
motivate students to persist in difficult academic pathways, motivate students to complete
one’s academic study and improve the likelihood of pursuing advanced study [32]. By
incorporating these changes into the civil engineering curriculum at SJSU, all students, and
especially the large number of underrepresented minority students, will have courses that cater
to their unique needs within their curriculum.
Course Development
The required geotechnical engineering course, CE 140: Introduction to Soil Mechanics is
currently testing the FCM. The first unit, a 4.5-week segment, introduces students to the
importance of a soil investigation in a civil engineering project, the origin of soils and various
methods to define a soil, both by its physical properties and its behaviors. Students have a
series of videos, 5-10 minutes in length, that present the content to be covered. Each lesson has
1-3 videos, depending on content and length. The videos are to be watched prior to attending
the class for which the work is assigned. Each series of videos is followed by a brief 3-question
quiz on Canvas, the course management system. The system is set up so that students are
unable to take the quiz without first watching the videos and also from continuing in the
module until a satisfactory grade is achieved on the quiz. The quizzes contain information
regarding key concepts in the video(s) just seen. The quizzes also provide the instructor with
input on the students’ preparation for the class. Once the videos and quizzes are completed, the
student will have access to a homework assignment. The homework assignments are short 3-5
question (as opposed to a standard 7-8 question) assignments that compliment the activities
carried out during class. During the class sessions students will be given an activity that has 2-3
questions. Students will work collaboratively in groups of 3-5 to find solutions to the activity
problems, which enforce and enhance concepts learned in the videos. The combination of the
shortened homework and the class activities would be comparable to the work for a typical
homework assignment in the traditional class format.
Results and Discussion
Student satisfaction with the FCM was measured by an online survey that was modeled
after the survey by G.B. Johnson in “Student Perceptions of the Flipped Classroom” [33].
Students were asked a series of questions about the FCM and asked to rank their opinion on a
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). They were then given the opportunity to
provide feedback on what they liked and didn’t like about the FCM.
Students were collectively more in agreement on their positive feelings about the FCM.
Tables 1 and 2 present results of the survey for the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 cohorts,
respectively. Table 3 summarizes comments that students made about what they liked about
the FCM. Around half (52.6%, 50%) of the students believed that the flipped classroom model
was more engaging than traditional classroom instruction. Their comments were also more
consistent, with 31-46% (31.7%, 46.4%) saying they liked that they could rewatch the lecture
videos whenever they chose. Another positive aspect of the FCM was that students felt that it
allowed them to work at their own pace (29.3%, 32.1%) and enabled them to pace themselves
successfully through the course (47.4%, 64.3%). A majority (50%, 57.1%) agreed that the FCM
gave them more time to work with fellow classmates and commented that they had more access
to the professor and classmates when problem-solving (17.1%, 14.3%). Less than one third of
students (31.6%, 25%) stated that they didn’t like the videos, with the remaining percentage
either being neutral (26.3%, 17.9%) or positive (42.1%, 57.1%) about them.
2
Table 1. Results from student survey reporting positive support with the FCM in Fall 2013.
Disagree/
Agree/
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Mean
Responses
Statement
The Flipped Classroom is more
engaging than traditional
classroom instruction.
No.
The Flipped Classroom gives me
greater opportunities to
communicate with other students.
I like watching the lessons on
video.
I find it easy to pace myself
successfully through the course.
The Flipped Classroom gives me
less class time to practice soil
mechanics.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
14
36.8
4
10.5
20
52.6
3.21
38
12
31.6
5
13.2
21
55.3
3.37
38
12
31.6
10
26.3
16
42.1
3.16
38
10
26.3
9
23.7
18
47.4
3.34
38
19
50
9
23.7
10
26.3
2.61
38
Table 2. Results from student survey reporting positive support with the FCM in Spring 2014.
Statement
The Flipped Classroom is more
engaging than traditional
classroom instruction.
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
No.
No.
The Flipped Classroom gives me
greater opportunities to
communicate with other students.
I like watching the lessons on
video.
I find it easy to pace myself
successfully through the course.
The Flipped Classroom gives me
less class time to practice soil
mechanics.
%
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
%
No.
Mean
%
Responses
No.
8
28.6
6
21.4
14
50
3.32
28
9
32.1
3
10.7
16
57.1
3.36
28
7
25
5
17.9
16
57.1
3.39
28
4
14.3
6
21.4
18
64.3
3.68
28
14
50
8
28.6
6
21.4
2.61
28
Table 3. Results from student comments reporting what they liked about FCM.
Student Likes
Ability to rewatch videos
Abilty to work at own pace
Accessibility of professor/classmates
during problem solving
Videos (usefulness, duration, access)
Fall 2013
13 (31.7%)
12 (29.3%)
Spring 2014
13 (46.4%)
9 (32.1%)
7 (17.1%)
4 (14.3%)
3 (7.3%)
2 (7.1%)
3
Negative comments from students tended to be less consistent among the students.
Fewer students were in agreement about what they didn’t like about the FCM. Tables 4 and 5
present results from the survey for the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 cohorts, respectively. Table 6
summarizes the most popular comments that students reported when asked what they didn’t
like about the FCM. Most students (51.4%, 64.3%) disagreed with the statement that that they
were spending less time with the FCM on soil mechanics than they would have with a
traditional format. Their comments also supported this assssment with 14.6% and 10.7%
commenting that the format felt more time consuming than a traditional class. Despite
reporting that they liked the ability to rewatch the videos and pace themselves with the
video/quiz/activity/homework sequence, 47.4% and 50% reported that they would still prefer
a traditional lecture format in the class. The greatest complaint in the comments was in regards
to the activity format (19.5%, 17.9%). Students’ complaints covered numerous aspects of the
activities, including the format, length, and grading. The over-arching theme of the details was
that the activities were too stressful due to worry about completion during the class time and
impact on grades if did not complete to make the collaboration effective. Students were using
the divide-and-conquer method for completion, which defeated the purpose of working
together and learning from peers.
Table 4. Results from student survey reporting negative support for the FCM in Fall 2013.
Disagree/
Agree/
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Mean
Responses
Statement
I am spending less time working on
traditional Soil Mechanics
homework.
I would rather watch a traditional
teacher lead a lesson than a lesson
video.
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
19
51.4
9
24.3
10
27
2.63
37
5
13.2
15
39.5
18
47.4
3.53
38
Table 5. Results from student survey reporting negative support for the FCM in Spring 2014.
Disagree/
Agree/
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Mean
Responses
Statement
I am spending less time working on
traditional Soil Mechanics
homework.
I would rather watch a traditional
teacher lead a lesson than a lesson
video.
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
18
64.3
2
7.1
8
28.6
2.54
28
5
17.9
9
32.1
14
50
3.39
28
Table 6. Results from student comments reporting what they did not like about FCM.
Student Dislikes
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Activity format (length, grading, solutions)
8 (19.5%)
5 (17.9%)
Time consuming
6 (14.6%)
3 (10.7%)
Video quality
1 (2.4%)
3 (10.7%)
Videos not engaging/boring
3 (7.3%)
4
Students were inconsistent across the two semesters on two points, their motivation to
learn soil mechanics and their level of learning of soil mechanics. In Fall 2013, students were
more likely to disagree with these statements (36.8% against motivation and 39.5% against
improved learning). In Spring 2014, students were more likely to agree with these statements
(40.7% for motivation and 35.7% for improved learning. More students were also in the
Neutral category in Spring 2014 than compared to Fall 2013. More data needs to be collected to
evaluate these aspects of the FCM.
Table 7. Results from student survey with inconclusive results for/against the FCM from Fall 2013.
Disagree/
Agree/
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Mean
Responses
Statement
I am more motivated to learn soil
mechanics in the Flipped
Classroom.
The Flipped Classroom has not
improved my learning of soil
mechanics.
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
14
36.8
13
34.2
11
28.9
2.95
38
15
39.5
10
26.3
12
31.6
2.81
38
Table 8. Results from student survey with inconclusive results for/against the FCM from Spring
2014.
Disagree/
Agree/
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Mean
Responses
Statement
I am more motivated to learn soil
mechanics in the Flipped
Classroom.
The Flipped Classroom has not
improved my learning of soil
mechanics.
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
6
22.2
10
37
11
40.7
3.22
27
9
32.1
9
32.1
10
35.7
3.37
28
Results tend to show that satisfaction with the fundamentals of the FCM
outweigh the negative attitudes towards the method. More people are in agreement
that the video lecture concept improves their ability to learn course content by review
of the videos at the students’ discretion and to pace themselves through the course
material. The collaborative working environment is received well by the students, but
improvements need to be made to the course format to maximize the benefits of this
working in groups. The additional time reported, whether actual or perceived, on
working with the course content with FCM is currently perceived as a negative to the
method and additional investigation is needed to evaluate if there are any benefits
(improved grades and passing rate) that justify the additional expenditures to the
student to reduce these negative perceptions.
Several comments that were not consensus across the student body, but have
potential for further evaluation are worth mentioning here. One student stated that the
FCM was beneficial to his/her educational experience because of their diagnosis with
Attention Deficit Disorder. The student reported that they were able to watch the
videos again if they “spaced out.” This comment supports the literature, mentioned
5
above, that shows that these active teaching methods help high-need, high-risk students
the most. Another student commented that they were able to have time to reflect on the
material before moving on, a luxury not afforded in a traditional classroom that many
students may not even identify as an important component of their education because it
is not compatible with a time-limited lecture. One more student stated that they liked
having full time access to the lectures, again another luxury not afforded to students, as
a professor is not available limitlessly.
The survey also highlighted several areas of improvement, namely with the
activities. The activity format needs to change to provide students more time to utilize
their group members as resources and work together towards a common solution. A
better balance needs to be achieved that forces students to stay on task, while
simultaneously not causing stress due to a limited time constraint and worry over a
grade. Another area that is in need of improvement includes the time commitment
perception. This is a two-sided problem. First, the perception that additional time
spent on study is negative needs to be adjusted. Second, the combination of the smaller
homework and the activities were thought to eliminate half the homework obligation,
may not be accurate. The additional time to work a problem collaboratively over that of
a standard work-alone method may need to be accounted for and the homework length
reduced accordingly.
Conclusion
The Flipped Classroom Model was tested in a 4.5-week unit of an upper division soil
mechanics class at San Jose State University. Videos containing lecture content were
posted for students to watch prior to attending class. During class, students worked
collaboratively to solve relevant problems based on that content. Smaller homework
assignments were then given to reflect the work in the classroom. Results shows
students were satisfied with the video concept and enjoyed the ability to watch the
videos whenever they wanted and as many times as they wanted. They enjoyed the
ability to pace themselves with the coursework over the 4.5 weeks. Students identified
several areas that were not satisfactory, including a reported increase in time spent on
the course and the format of the in-class activities. Areas that are slated for
reevaluation include the format for the activities and correlated homework and
evaluation of the expected time required for success in the course.
1
2
3
4
5
National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for
undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.
Washington, DC: NSF DUE.
National Research Council. (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Academy of Engineering (2004). The engineer of 2020. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting
engineering education to the next century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Fox, M. A., & Hackerman, N. (Eds.). (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate
teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National
Research Council.
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fairweather, J. (2009). Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education, a Status
Report for The National Academies National Research Council Board of Science
Education, number 17.
The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University.
(1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research
universities. Available: http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/
Gaffney, J. D., Richards, E., Kustusch, M. B., Ding, L., & Beicher, R. (2008). Scaling up
educational reform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(5), 48-53.
U.S. News and World Report. (2010). Campus diversity ranking. America's best colleges
2010.
Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority
mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal, 23(5):362–372.
Chinn, D., Martin, K., & Spencer, C. (2007). Treisman workshops and student
performance in CS. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1): 203–207.
Fullilove, K., & Treisman, U. (1986). Mathematics achievement among African-American
undergraduates in the University of California, Berkeley: An evaluation of the
mathematics workshop program. The Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 463–478.
McFarland, R.D. (2004). Effective design considerations to address Hispanic MIS/CS
curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20 (1).
Burn, H., & Holloway, J. (2006). Why should I care? Student motivation in an
introductory programming course. Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition, 18-21 June 2006, Chicago, IL.
The University of Colorado-Boulder Multicultural Engineering Program. (2007).
Impacting the Achievement of Underrepresented Minorities in Science and Engineering.
2007 Conference on the Preparation of Physics and Physical Science Teachers.
Rath, K.A., Peterfreund, A.R., Xenos, S.P., Bayliss, F., & Carnal, N. (2007). Supplemental
instruction in Introductory Biology I: Enhancing the performance and retention of
underrepresented minority students. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6, 203-216.
Hewitt, N. M. & Seymour, E. (1992). A long discouraging climb, ASEE PRISM, 1(6), 24-28.
Astin, A. W. (1993). Engineering outcomes. ASEE Prism, pp. 27-30.
Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ:
Research Corporation.
Kuh, G. D. (2007). Risky business: Promises and pitfalls of institutional transparency.
Change, 39(5) 30-35.
Zhao, C., Carini, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Searching for the Peach Blossom Shangri-La:
Student Engagement of Men and Women SMET Majors, The Review of Higher Education,
28(4), 503-525.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R, & Smith, K. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college
classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
De Caprariis, P., Barman, C., & Magee, P. (2001). Monitoring the benefits of active
learning exercises in introductory survey courses in science: An attempt to improve the
education of prospective public school teachers. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 1(2), 1-11.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (Eds.). (1987). Seven principles for good proactive in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J.,
Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Education: Scientific
teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521-522.
7
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Peters, A. W. (2005). Teaching biochemistry at a minority-serving institution: An
evaluation of the role of collaborative learning as a tool for science mastery. Journal of
Chemical Education, 82(4), 571-574.
Christensen, T. (2005, November-December). Changing the learning environment in
large general education astronomy classes, Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(3),
34-38.
Fenci, H., & Scheel, K. (2005). Engaging students. An examination of the effects of
teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a nonmajors Physics course.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 20-24.
Hughes, H. (2012). Introduction to flipping the college classroom. In T. Amiel & B.
Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2012 (pp. 2434-2438). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Christensen, T. (2005, November/December). Changing the learning environment in
large general education astronomy classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34-38.
Milem, J. (2001). Increasing diversity benefits: How campus climate and teaching
methods affect student outcomes. In Diversity challenged. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Publishing Group
Adair, J.K., Reyes, M.A., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., & Kouris, D.A. (2001 Workshops vs.
tutoring: How ASU’s minority engineering program is changing the way engineering
students learn. In Proceedings of the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
volume 2, pp. T4G–7–T4G–11, October 2001.
Johnson, G.B. (2013). “Student Satisfaction of the Flipped Classroom”. Retrieved from
https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/44070. May 22, 2014.
8