You are on page 1of 1

Analysis (July 2013

)

Implementation/Evaluation (August-December 2013)
What was implemented?

Project Objective:
Flip three to five Introduction to Managerial Accounting (ACC 200) classes for Fall 2013.

Long-term capital flipped class

• Pre-class video

• In-class case study with clickers

• Students submitted the answers to the last questions of the case study
Evaluation:
• Instructor:

• There were some technical issues with the students submitting videos.

• Grading the videos took too much time.

• The instructor also said he learned more about the students’
understanding of the material from the videos than he ever had before.
• We learned some things, but we need to revisit our analysis and go through
it more thoroughly and purposefully.
• Assessment Data:

• Student performance on activities-based costing increased significantly,
but this may have been due to a very similar question provided in an
earlier exam.

• Student performance on long-term capital Investments increased from
72% to 76%.

Instructional Challenges:
After conversations with the instructor, we identified the following challenges:
• Scheduling logistics: Students can cover up to two new chapters before exams because of lab schedules.
• Abilities of teaching assistants are inconsistent
• Holding students accountable
• Getting students to put pen to paper
Content Challenges:
Looking at the learning assessment questions used by the department to determine competency,
we identified the following areas to focus on:
• Activities Based Costing: 49.16% of students answered question correctly in Spring 2013
• Cost Volume Profit: 49.16% of students answered question correctly in Spring 2013
• Budgeting: 51.96% of students answered question correctly in Spring 2013
• Capital Investment Decisions: 71.79% of students answered question correctly in Spring 2013

Development (August-October 2013)
Materials Developed: Syllabus Video

Design (July-August 2013)
Solutions Considered:
• Flipping with Fizz Method: Instructor
provides short videos on core concepts
using white boards; students shoot short
videos explaining concepts covered in class.
• Inquiry-based lectures
• Case Studies with clicker questions
• Additional review of content
• Focused lab sessions
• Move high-performance content online
• Gamification using social media

1C

Implementation/Evaluation (August-December 2014)

Solutions Considered:
• Gamification
• Central business example course revolves around
• Find a lab replacement
• Continue with current structure
• Revise current structure

• Syllabus video and quiz
• Activities-based costing flipped class

• Pre-class video

• In-class case study with clickers

• Students submitted group videos

About the Course:
Introduction to Managerial Accounting is a 300 student-section, large lecture hall class. Students attend
two lectures a week in an auditorium and attend a lab session taught by a teaching assistant once a week.
Classes in the auditorium are lectures with clicker questions that accrue points for attendance. Student
homework is in publisher software and allows multiple attempts. Lab sessions use written lab exercises
graded by teaching assistants.

Design (January 2014-May 2014)

Next Steps:
• Put in place minimal revisions for Spring 2014
• The grant received continued funding to flip the entire course
• Revisit analysis and design with new feedback during Spring 2014
• Design whole course solution

• What was implemented:

• Flipped Course Structure

• Pre-class animated activities

• In-class case-based activities with clickers

• Post-class homework

• Post-class lab exercise

• Optional lab for help with homework or lab exercises

Additional Analysis:
• Brought in experts in accounting field
who have flipped their classes to
facilitate workshops
• Instructor attended professional
development event that had workshops
on flipped classes
• Visited other flipped classes at NC State
• Compared solutions put in place in these
other courses

Student Evaluation
Purpose and Method:

Takeaways from flipped-class observations/presentations
BYU
• Uses his own
materials
developed
over time
• Accountability
• Consistent
structure
• One optional
lecture and one
required lecture
• Tutoring lab

WVU
• Content: hybrid
of financial and
managerial
• No textbook, uses
own materials
• Taught DE first,
so all videos done
before flipping
• Accountability
• No TAs, limited
support

Development (May-August 2014)

Org Chem

Mech Eng

• Consistent
structure
• Accountability,
No Points is
Pointless
• Rearrange groups
after every test.
• Assign group
roles
• Uses WebAssign
• Lots of volunteer
undergraduate
TAs

• Consistent
structure
• Clickers
• Accountability
• Rearrange groups
after each exam
• Assign group
roles
• Sample problems
online LiveScribe
• Skeleton notes
online
• Course packet
• One TA

I created a survey to evaluate student attitudes toward the course redesign solutions implemented in ACC
200 in Fall 2014. The survey asked both closed- and open-ended questions on the topics of expectations,
workload, usefulness of activities in relationship to assessments, preferences, and participation in labs and
groups. The survey was sent via email to all enrolled ACC 200 students and was open from November 12,
2014, through November 19, 2014.

Response Rate:

The survey was sent to 634 users, and we received 188 responses. This was a 29.6% response rate to the
survey. Of the 188 responses, two responders were eliminated because they did not meet the age threshold of
18 years or older.
How helpful do you think
clickers are in engaging you
in the ACC 200 classroom
activities (e.g., submit answers to problems)?

Which in-class activity(s) is
most helpful in ACC 200?

Explain whether you prefer
to listen to the professor
lecture or work through
problems.

.

Overall Takeaways:
• Consistency–Consistent Structure
• Accountability
• Don’t tell them you’re flipping

Materials Developed:
• For each chapter, the instructor did the following:

• Pre-class exercises selected

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statements about the pre-class activities
and the homework assignments?

Design Plan for Fall 2014

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statements about the lab activities?

• Course Structure
Pre-chapter

In-class

Post-chapter

• Start with Clicker question • CNow Lecture Home
to gauge understanding of work (15 assignments)
• Review PPT for lecture pre-work
Lecture Homework
• Complete pre-lecture • Attendance clicker follows due five days
assignments (11-15 (allows some students to post chapter
• Lab Sessions (12-14
assignments) - CNOW come in late)
sessions)
Animated Activities

• Streamlined lecture
CNow Blueprint ProbOpens five days prior to
lems due 10 days post
topic starting in lecture
Shorten instruction: do not
lecture

cover
items
covered
in
Most take 15-30
Blueprint problems can
pre-class
work
minutes max.
be taken to lab/tutoring
for
Pre-class work due Longer in-class exercises
additional help
8
am day of class
More clicker questions on
All post-chapter
exercises
exercises count toward
All pre-class CNOW
final grade
assignments are graded
and count toward final
grade
• Read textbook chapter

Lecture Videos: Edited from previously
captured classroom lectures
• Homework exercises selected

Case Study

Design Plan for Fall 2013
• Flip two-three lectures

• Activities-based costing

• Long-term capital investment decisions

• Budgeting

• Lab (Blueprint) problems selected

Labs:
• Use SCHEDULED lab sessions as help sessions
• No assigned work
• Open for tutoring/help on blueprint problems
• Takes some responsibility away from TAs and allows them to
focus on their obligations to coach and practice

• Flipped Structure

• Create online lecture video for pre-class viewing

• Work through an example case in lecture class

• Students create a short video that explains the case following
the class for a homework grade

• Additional Changes

Instructions for Uploading
Student Videos:

• Create a syllabus video and quiz

• Make labs optional: students can submit lab activity online and see
solution after assignment closes; they then determine if they want to
go to lab to do an alternate exercise.

• Clicker questions created
• Case/set of problems created
• PowerPoint revision
When the PowerPoints for all chapters we
completed, the instructor pulled the relevant
materials to create a course packet.
(see sample images below)
d

Flipped Class Materials
Course Pack in need of development
PPT slides, ledger sheets, class exercises
Organized for term
Used for in-class work
(Include scratch sheets for online homework?)
Grading Structure
Exams-70%: 15, 15, 15, 25
Pre-Class Work-7.5%
Lecture Work-7.5%
Online Homework-7.5%
Blueprint Problems-7.5%

Departmental Evaluation
Purpose and Method:
Since Fall 2011, the Accounting Department has gathered data to determine if students
are meeting the learning outcomes in the course as part of their accreditation plan.
There are 10 learning objectives identified for the course that map to questions on the
final exam. This table shows the student results beginning at the initial analysis phase
starting in Spring 2013 through the most recent implementation in Fall 2014.

Learning Objective
LO 1
LO 2
LO 3
LO 4
LO 5
LO 6
LO 7
LO 8
LO 9
LO 10

Spring 2013
95.25%
49.16%
77.93%
82.43%
71.79%
66.20%
49.16%
86.03%
81.57%
51.96%

Fall 2013
96.03%
43.23%
57.06%
85.82%
76.53%
58.39%
88.30%
79.19%
86.39%
56.32%

Spring 2014
94.20%
43.85%
48.70%
87.58%
72.27%
58.71%
55.86%
70.35%
77.48%
53.65%

Fall 2014
97.47%
60.23%
64.64%
91.54%
86.11%
62.61%
67.16%
65.46%
79.18%
58.72%

69.84

52.86%

69.46%

Overall Student Success

64.27%

Next Steps:
• Continue current implementation strategy for next 2-3 years
• Refine in-class case studies
• Collect assessment data
• LTI Integration of publisher tool into LMS