Track 12. Educational Innovation Authors: Anastasio P. Santos, Ricardo Castedo, Covadonga Alarcon, Kyan Dios, María Chiquito, Isabel España and Lina M. López https://youtu.be/Spf_W5B--8c

1. Development of Flipped
Classroom model to improve the
students’ performance
Salamanca, October
2018
Anastasio P. Santos; Ricardo Castedo;Covadonga
Alarcón; Kyan S. Dios; María Chiquito;
Isabel España; Lina Mª López.
This work was supported by the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
throughout the project “Enseñanza de resistencia de materiales y mecánica de
medios continuos en grado y máster a través de aula invertida” (Ref.
IE1718.0602).

2. Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions
Traditional model
"2.0" in engineering
• Master lesson
• In the best case, problems or exercises
• Homework assignments
• Compulsory attendance….
Since 2000, "Flipped
Classroom"
• Model put into operation by Lage and Baker
• "Tell me something and I'll forget it, show me
something and I'll remember it, share something
with me and I'll learn it!"

3. Stages
Acquisitive
Reactive
Phases (Activities)
Basics
Etapas y fases del aprendizaje (Soler et al., 2002)
• Receptive (videos and slides)
• Reflective (abstracts or schemes)
• Retentive (questionnaires)
• Extensive (questionnaire explanation)
• Expressive (team work / blackboard)
• Practice (exam)
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions

4. Flipped Classroom
Context Description Results ConclusionsIntroduction

5. • For the model to be effective à commitment of the student to his learning
• Teachers' effort to adapt the contents
• There is no uniformity in the application, nor techniques, ...
• Deficit in the measure of the impact of this methodologyon learning
Requirements / Difficulties
Adapting
• Measure the impact based on the result in exams of the subject
• Reduce dropout rate in class and in exams
• Analyze students' connectivity habits
• Observe the student's conception of their work at home and active participation as a
fundamental part of their own learning - SEEQ questionnaire
Context Description Results ConclusionsIntroduction

6. • Access grade (year 2016-17): GIE →
8,318; GITM → 5,0
• The subject Material Technology (7 cr) is
divided into 2 parts: Materials Science
(3.5 cr / 7) and Strength of Materials (4
cr / 7)
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions
MATERIAL TECHNOLOGY
Materials Science Strength of Materials

7. • After the first master session
common to all groups.
• Master session by the same teacher.
• Questionnaire type test of 5
questions on general issues of the
subject seen in the first session.
• As a basis to establish the starting
levels of both groups.
Homogeneity control test
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions

8. GIE 1 /GITM 2
book presentations Solved problems
100 minutes
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions
TRADITIONAL MODEL

9. GIE 2 / GITM 1
• The questionnaire is overcome by saturation.
• Infinite attempts to take a 10/10.
• The questions and answers are shuffled
between attempts.
• They open contents of the followingclasses.
20 minutes
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions
book presentations Videos

10. GIE 2 / GITM 1
Teamwork Exercices Sol. on the blackboard
Questionnaire Explanation
±10 minutes
±70 minutes
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions

11. Homogeneity control test
• Although there are 5 questions with answer
options, only 1 is valid.
• It is evaluated on 10.
• Only well-answered questions are taken
into account.
• The wrong answers do not remain.
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions
GIE GITM
GIE 1
GIE
GC
GITM
1
GITM
GC
Mean 6,2 6,38 8,27 7,00
Standard
Deviation
2,14 2,15 1,73 2,16
U de Mann-
Whitney
0,506 0,004

12. Class attendance
• The attendance drops drastically after the first partial exam.
• Greater attendance of the students of the experimental group in GITM (new
methodology)
• There is no significant difference in terms of assistance in GIE
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions
GIE GITM

13. Watch trend of videos 2 and 5 of theme 6 for GIE and GITM.
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions

14. Exams - GIE
parciales
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions
First partial
exam
Second
partial exam
FINAL JUNE
GC GE GC GE GC GE
Mean 7,09 7,14 4,7 4,37 4,84 4,86
Standard
deviation
2,44 2,46 2,23 2,42 1,12 1,86
Median 7,5 7,35 4,9 4,4 5,10 4,64
P/M (%) 83 93 83 98 65 98
A/P (%) 75 79 37 47 50 46
U of Mann-
Whitney
0,388 0,951 0,467
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov
0,834 0,729 0,352
Exams - GITM
parciales
First partial
exam
Second
partial exam
FINAL JUNE
GC GE GC GE GC GE
Mean 5,88 6,07 3,32 3,99 3,68 6,08
Standard
deviation
2,32 2,08 2,94 2,62 2,76 2,36
Median 5,9 5,7 2,2 3,5 3,15 4,2
P/M (%) 83 96 76 89 76 89
A/P (%) 60 66 25 32 41 40
U of Mann-
Whitney
0,654 0,106 0,037
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov
0,849 0,126 0,003

15. Positive aspects
• The model applied here in the global of a compulsory subject with a
large number of students, shows that the inverted classroom can be
applied with reasonablesuccess in similar subjects
• Increase in class attendance (much remains to be done) and
attendance at exams
• Improvement of academic results, especially if learning is active
(blackboard)
• Greater work on the part of the students
• Link activity that detects weaknesses in the learning process
• They see the videos in great quantity
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions

16. To improve …
• Encourage class attendance à Explaining the results of this Project?
• Raise awareness about active learning and the improvement of
academic results (blackboard) à Explaining the results of this
Project?
• Improvement of the link activity so that more students can do it and
the deficiencies are better detected
• Improve the feeling of certain students by the daily work load that
this methodology implies for a course of this magnitude
• Try to improve the viewing tendencies of the videos, so that they
focus less on the pre-test
Introduction Context Description Results Conclusions

17. ¡Thanks!