BACKGROUND OR CONTEXT: Hounsell, Entwhistle, Marton, and Biggs [2005 & 1999] argue that students will approach their learning differently depending on the pedagogical models that their lecturers use. Lecturers who rely on one-way communication in lectures and tutorials, and test for declarative knowledge in end-of-course, closed-book exams tend to encourage students to take a surface or passive approach to learning. Those who require their students to interact in lectures and tutorials and problem solving projects, and who test students’ deep understanding of the topic via exercises, quizzes and continuous and authentic assessment tasks, help instil a deep or active approach to learning. There are many ways to encourage a deep approach to learning. In a featured article in the International HETL Review in 2014, Estes, Ingram and Liu, summarized and critiqued the practice and research literature that underpins one of them, namely, an emerging pedagogical model called ‘the flipped classroom’. In the 2014 AEEE conference the second author presented a first cycle of action research that studied an example of ‘flipping the classroom’ in Engineering Education. This paper reports on a second cycle of that research.
26th Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference, Geelong, Australia 7-9 December 2015
Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference / Aman Oo, Arun Patel, Tim Hilditch and Siva Chandran (eds):