Computer Science and Systems Analysis Computer Science and Systems Analysis Technical Reports Miami University Year  Using the Inverted Classroom to teach Software Engineering Gerald C. Cannod Janet E. Burge Miami University Miami University Michael T. Helmick Miami University This paper is posted at Scholarly Commons at Miami University. http://sc.lib.muohio.edu/csa techreports/3 School of Enginering & Aplied Science | Oxford, Ohio 45056 | 513-529-5928 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE & SYSTEMS ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT: MU-SEAS-CSA-2007-001 Using the Inverted Clasrom to Teach Software Enginering Gerald C. Ganod , Janet E. Burge, Michael T. Helmick Using the Inverted Classroom to Teach Software Engineering Gerald C. Gannod∗ Department of Computer Science and Systems Analysis Miami University Oxford, OH 45056gannodg@muohio.edu Janet E. Burge Department of Computer Science and Systems Analysis Miami University Oxford, OH 45056burgeje@muohio.edu Michael T. Helmick Department of Computer Science and Systems Analysis Miami University Oxford, OH 45056mike.helmick@muohio.edu ABSTRACT An inverted classroom is a teaching environment that mixes the use of technology with hands-on activities. In an inverted classroom, typical in-class lecture time is replaced with labo- ratory and in-class activities. Outside class time, lectures are delivered over some other medium such as video on- demand. In a three credit hour course for instance, contact hours are spent having students actively engaged in learning activities. Outside of class, students are focused on viewing 3-6 hours of lectures per week. Additional time outside of class is spent completing learning activities. In this paper we present the inverted classroom model in the context of a soft- ware engineering curriculum. The paper motivates the use of the inverted classroom and suggests how different courses from the Software Engineering 2004 Model Curriculum Vol- ume can incorporate the use of the inverted classroom. In addition, we present the results of a pilot course that uti- lized the inverted classroom model at Miami University and describe courses that are currently in process of piloting its use. Categories and Subject Descriptors D.2.0 [Software Engineering]: General; K.3.2 [Computing Milieux]: Computers and Education—Curriculum, Com- puter science education General Terms Software Engineering Education Keywords Inverted Classroom, Technology in Education, Podcasting ∗Contact Author. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. ICSE ’08 Leipzig, Germany Copyright 200X ACM X-XXXXX-XX-X/XX/XX ...$5.00. 1. INTRODUCTION Software engineering is, at its essence, an applied disci- pline that involves interaction with customers, collaboration with globally distributed developers, and hands-on produc- tion of software artifacts. The education of future software engineers is, by necessity, an endeavor that requires students to be active learners. That is, students must gain experi- ence, not in isolation, but in the presence of other learners and under the mentorship of instructors and practitioners. Aninverted classroom is ateachingenvironmentthat mixes the use of technology with hands-on activities [1]. In an in- verted classroom, typical in-class lecture time is replaced with laboratory and in-class activities. Outside class time, lectures are delivered over some other medium such as video on-demand. In a three credit hour course for instance, con- tact hours are spent having students actively engaged in learning activities. Outside of class, students are focused on viewing 3-6 hours of lectures per week. Additional time outside of class is spent completing in-class activities. Past uses of the inverted classroom have included the use of video tape, DVD players and downloadable media files [1]. Newtechnologies, such as iPods, and newbroadcast method- ologies, such as podcasting, have made access to multimedia data more accessible and ubiquitous. While many educa- tors are exploring a wide variety ways to utilize the iPod for instruction [2, 3], there has yet to be any consensus on the most effective use of the technology in the classroom. In the inverted classroom, learning activities that would typically are done outside of class, are done in-class in the presence of the instructor. Passive activities, such as listen- ing to lectures, are performed outside of class. As a result, valuable faculty“face”time is not spent merely communicat- ing information, but rather is spent engaging directly with students when they are involved in in-depth learning activ- ities. Many computing courses ultimately involve hands-on ac- tivities. While significant long-term projects are a staple of computing programs, short high-payoff homework and lab assignments can benefit greatly from a more traditional lab- oratory environment. In this paper we present the inverted classroom model [1] in the context of a software engineer- ing curriculum. The paper motivates the use of the inverted classroom and suggests how different courses from the Soft- ware Engineering 2004 Model Curriculum Volume [4] can incorporate the use of the inverted classroom. In addition, we present the results a pilot course that utilized the in- verted classroom model at Miami University and describe courses that are currently in process of piloting its use. 2. BACKGROUND This section presents the context of the work described in this paper. 2.1 Educational Models Cooperative or collaborative learning was derived from the- ories relating to motivation and movement towards desired goals. The idea of cooperative learning comes from the idea that a social group (e.g., students) when linked together can achieve some positive goal (e.g., learning) [5]. Collaborative learning has become popular recently as a means for provid- ing instruction, especially in a group context [6]. The origins of distance education harken back to days of correspondence via mail and other asynchronous media as a means for pro- viding instruction. Distance education has become more popular with the inception of the Internet. Institutions such as the University of Phoenix and the Open University have fully embraced the use of distance education. In this paper we describe an approach to learning that utilizes the benefits of both collaborative and distance learning. 2.2 Software Engineering Curricula Software Engineering Curriculum 2004 Volume. The 2004 Software Engineering Model Curriculum was produced as a resource for institutions wanting to propose software engineering degree programs [4]. The volume pro- vides a detailed set of models that are tailorable to different organization types and includes model curricula that are ap- plicable for introducing software engineering in either the1st or 2nd year of a program. Different models have also been produced to account for location of an institution (e.g., Eu- rope vs. North America vs. Australia, etc.). Software Factory. Several models for delivering software engineering con- tent have been suggested, ranging from capstone courses to industry-required projects. One such model has been sug- gested by Tvedt, et al. on the software factory [7]. Their model introduces the notion of using cohorts in a staggered manner. In the model, students are involved in develop- ing software as part of project teams with advanced cohorts leading projects and beginning cohorts acting as develop- ment teams. This particular model is interesting from the standpoint of the“Montessori”type model of instruction as well as in the amount of hands-on activity that occurs on the projects. In this paper we describe how an inverted classroom model increases hands-on experience but look at individual courses rather than a reordering of an entire cur- riculum. 2.3 Podcasting for Education A“podcast”isa term usedto describetheuseof a subscrip- tion-based broadcasting of video and audio content using really simple syndication. The original intent was for the use of podcasting to push content to owners of Apple iPods, although podcasts are not limited to use of by just iPod own- ers. The use of podcasting for education has seen increased adoption as evidenced by the amount of content now avail- able at the Apple iTunesU site [3]. However, the focus of podcasting in education has been on production and tech- nology [2], and little on the pedagogy of using podcasting. In this paper, we present a model of education that is facil- itated by podcasting, namely the inverted classroom. 3. INVERTED CLASSROOM 3.1 The Learners The student of today, the so-called“Millenial”, works from a mindset that is different than each of the preceding“Gen- Xer” and “Boomer” generations. Frand identifies ten char- acteristics common with millenials [8]: 1. Computers aren’t technology - millenial students have grown up in an environment where computers and the Internet are ubiquitous. Computers are not a new technology. 2. The Internet is better than TV - the number of hours spent on the Internet has increased while the amount of time watching television has decreased. 3. Reality is no longer real - images and other things viewed on the Internet or on TV may have been al- tered. There is little trust for authenticity of many things. 4. Doing is more important than knowing - the activity of accumulating knowledge is viewed as less important than gaining skills that enable them to deal with com- plex and ambiguous information. 5. Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic - the trial-and-error mentality that comes from the ex- perience millenials have from playing video games is far more pervasive than in previous generations. 6. Multitasking is a way of life - it is not uncommon to find young people doing many things at once (e.g., si- multaneously listening to music, eating, sending in- stant messages and watching TV) 7. Typing is preferred to handwriting - millenial students prefer using word processors or other computing based recording mechanism over writing. 8. Staying connected is essential - millenial students are continuously connected using a plethora of devices in- cluding cell phones, computers, and other hand-held devices. 9. There is zero tolerance for delays - while some of us can remember the days when TV stations would go off the air, millenial students expect 24x7 access to services and people. 10. Consumer and creator are blurring - there is a belief that there is little difference between the owner, cre- ator, and user of information. Foreman identifiesanumberof learningtheory essentials [9]. Specifically, he states that the ideal learning situation is cus- tomized, provides immediate feedback, is constructive, mo- tivates students to persist, and builds enduring conceptual structures. In regards to customization, Foreman indicates that optimal learning addresses learning styles and “prox- imal zones”. That is, optimal learning should not appear foreign to a learner. Optimal learning is constructive means that allows students to explore multisensorial environments through active discovery. Persistence refers to motivating students to gain a desire to pursue more knowledge in a particular area. Finally, optimal learning promotes develop- ment and committment of knowledge to long-term memory in order to integrate that knowledge for everyday practical usage. As educators of software engineering, it is our task to de- termine how we can connect millenial students that are de- scribed as Frand indicates, with the characteristics of the ideal learning environment described by Foreman. 3.2 Inverted Classroom The traditional instructor-centered educational model is based on the use of class contact time (e.g., class time) on the delivery of information through lecture. In this model, the expectation is that an instructor impart knowledge of some particular topic. A traditional model is limited by the constraint that any particular class meeting is limited to a finite number of minutes, and that there are a finite num- ber of class meetings. The challenge often associated with instructor-centered education is the lack of in-class active learning. Specifically, while instructors often do mix lecture with in-class activities that facilitate active learning, there is a tension between use of that class time for those activities versus the need to“cover”topics found on a syllabus. More progressive models of instruction includes collabora- tive learning, where students are focused on some particular task and must, as a group, identify the relevant topics, the- ories, and methodologies that are releveant in completing that task. For instance, the work by Dietrich and Urban demonstrated the use of collaborative and active learning in database courses [6]. A potential problem with collabo- rative learning lies in the fact that it becomes difficult to assess whether certain educational outcomes are achieved. Thus, collaborative learning must be tempered with an ap- propriate amount of instructor-centered lecture to ensure topic coverage. A growing trend towards distance learning, especially in for-profit institutions, has taken advantage of the Internet by providing access to content for use by students in self- paced environment. The benefit of distance learning is that the learner can access information at their own pace and can continually reference recorded material. That is, in some models where lecture materials are provided through a recorded medium, students can pause, fast-forward, reverse, and replay lectured content. Such models rely upon student motivation to manage course requirements and learning ac- tivities and thus self-motivation is paramount for consistent success. Finally, much of the learning that occurs in such environments is asynchronous and thus the ability to pro- vide the benefits of collaborative and active learning is non- existent. An inverted classroom approach for instruction “inverts” the traditional instructor-centered model while taking ad- vantage of the benefits of both distance learning and col- laborative and active learning [1]. In an inverted classroom, lecture content is provided over some asynchronous medium. Students access the lecture content outside of class during the non-contact hours of a semester. During the contact hours (e.g., the“normal”class periods) students are involved in learning activities in the form of in-class assignments, lab- oratories, and discussions. Table 1 shows some of the dif- ferences between the inverted classroom and the traditional lecture model. The benefits of using an inverted classroom model are many. First, with respect to coverage, since the lecture con- tent is delivered asynchronously, there are no limitations imposed by a finite number of class minutes or meetings. Second, again since the content is delivered asynchronously, students can access, view, and review material at their own pace. Third, by having the in-class component of the course, students can be engaged in active learning with other learn- ers on a regular basis. Specifically, by having the students working in a laboratory environment where discussion be- tween peers is encouraged, learners can take advantage of the benefits that result from having to explain concepts to each other, thus reinforcing and solidifying their own under- standing of those concepts. From the standpoint of active versus passive learning, the inverted classroom model has the effect of pushing passive learning (e.g., listening to lec- tures) away from the classroom and to the home, library, or other viewing location. Active learning, then, is pulled to the classroom. In addition, since the instructor is freed up from having to lecture during the in-class period, the in- structor is able to engage with the students when the active learning is occurring. 3.3 Learners and the Inverted Classroom Theinvertedclassroom modeladdresses manyof theFrand characteristics of the millenial student. Specifically, the in- verted classroom addresses the following characteristics: 4. Doing is more important than knowing - the inverted classroom model takes the focus away from the lecture and places it upon the extensive use of active learn- ing. Software engineering is a highly applied activity. Learning in this context depends on repeated applica- tion of techniques in order to gain experience. 5. Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic - the inverted classroom provides more opportunity for iteration. Software engineering processes are highly it- erative. The ability to define and refine different arti- facts in the collaborative environment provided by the inverted classroom offers many opportunities to use it- eration to refine artifacts and thus reinforce student knowledge and capabilities. 6. Multitasking is a way of life - content delivery through podcasted lectures allows students to do something that comes natural to them. Since content is deliv- ered via podcasting, students can take advantage of the ability to pause, restart, and review lectures at their leisure or in and amongst many of the tasks they may be undergoing at any given time. 9. There is zero tolerance for delays - the inverted class- room facilitates providing immediate feedback when that feedback is most important. In the inverted class- room model, feedback can be provided immediately during the in-class contact hour when learning activi- ties are being performed. In addition, if an instructor is brave enough to wade into the instant messaging waters, immediate feedback can also be given at other times. a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a4 a6 a7 a2 a8 a9 a7 a10 a11 a1 a5 a11 a3 a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a4 a6 a7 a2 a8 a9 a7 a10 a11 a1 a5 a11 a3 a12 a1 a11 a13  a14 a6 a1  a8 a11 a15 a5 a16 a1 a11 a17 a5 a2 a7 a3 a2 a1 a3  a13 a1 a11 a13  a5 a4 a18 a11 a17 a5 a2 a7 a3 a2 a1 a3  a13 a1 a11 a13  a13 a8 a16 a19  a13 a1 a11 a13  a14 a6 a1  a2 a3 a3 a4 a5 a4 a6 a7 a2 a8  a18 a2 a5 a11 a1 a4 a2 a8  a20 a2 a19  a3 a11 a19 a4 a1 a11 a3 a21 a22  a13 a1 a6 a3 a16 a15 a11  a1 a11 a15 a6 a1 a3 a11 a3  a8 a11 a15 a5 a16 a1 a11  a20 a23 a19 a5  a6 a14 a14 a11 a1 a4 a7 a24 a21  a2 a5  a8 a11 a2 a19 a5  a5 a25 a6  a3 a2 a26 a19  a13 a1 a4 a6 a1  a5 a6  a15 a6 a7 a5 a2 a15 a5  a27 a6 a16 a1 a28 a29 a30 a28 a29 a30 a12 a1 a11 a13  a14 a6 a1  a15 a8 a2 a19 a19 a17 a2 a18 a11  a2 a19  a8 a11 a15 a5 a16 a1 a11  a13 a1 a11 a13 a31 a11 a10 a11 a8 a6 a13  a8 a11 a2 a1 a7 a4 a7 a24  a2 a15 a5 a4 a10 a4 a5 a26  a32 a11 a14 a6 a1 a11  a18 a11 a11 a5 a4 a7 a24  a5 a4 a18 a11 a33 a11 a2 a3 a4 a7 a24 a19 a33 a11 a2 a3 a4 a7 a24 a19 a22  a10 a4 a11 a25  a13 a6 a3 a15 a2 a19 a5 a19  a32 a11 a14 a6 a1 a11  a15 a8 a2 a19 a19 a30 a5 a5 a11 a7 a3 a2 a7 a15 a11 a28 a29 a30 a28 a29 a30 a34 a7 a8 a26  a4 a14  a1 a11 a35 a16 a4 a1 a11 a3 a33 a11 a35 a16 a4 a1 a11 a3 a36 a11 a2 a1 a7 a4 a7 a24  a30 a15 a5 a4 a10 a4 a5 a4 a11 a19 a9 a7 a19 a5 a1 a16 a15 a5 a6 a1  a14 a11 a11 a3 a32 a2 a15 a37  a3 a11 a8 a2 a26 a11 a3 a22  a15 a6 a7 a5 a2 a15 a5  a2 a7 a3  a24 a16 a4 a3 a2 a7 a15 a11  a8 a4 a18 a4 a5 a11 a3  a5 a6  a6 a14 a14 a4 a15 a11  a27 a6 a16 a1 a19 a9 a7 a19 a5 a1 a16 a15 a5 a6 a1  a14 a11 a11 a3 a32 a2 a15 a37  a4 a7  a13 a1 a6 a15 a11 a19 a19 a22  a15 a6 a7 a5 a2 a15 a5  a3 a16 a1 a4 a7 a24  a11 a7 a5 a4 a1 a11  a15 a6 a7 a5 a2 a15 a5  a27 a6 a16 a1 a34 a16 a5 a19 a4 a3 a11  a15 a8 a2 a19 a19 a9 a7 r a15 a8 a2 a19 a19  a29  a34 a16 a5 a19 a4 a3 a11  a15 a8 a2 a19 a19 a9 a7 a19 a5 a1 a16 a15 a5 a6 a1 a17 a5 a16 a3 a11 a7 a5 Table 1: Differences between Traditional and Inverted Classroom Models With respect to Foreman’s optimal learning situations, the inverted classroom is: • Customized - the use of podcasting allows the student to focus on passive content as much as needed, when needed. The hands-on learning activities facilitate cus- tomized instruction by allowing the instructor to be more involved in the active learning of the students. • Provides Immediate Feedback - the in-class activities during contact hours allow the instructor to provide immediate feedback on a more regular basis. • Constructive - the combination of the use of lecture, screencasts video blogs, and other supplemental video along with a more hands-on classroom experience, ex- poses students to a constructive environment rife with active discovery. • Motivating - persistent hands-on activities allow stu- dents to observe the purpose for many of learning out- comes for a course. • Enduring - the inverted classroom provides an oppor- tunity for reinforcement of concepts. The reinforce- ment and hand-on application assists in helping stu- dents commit knowledge to long-term memory. 3.4 Instructors and the Inverted Classroom Unfortunately, the success of a new teaching paradigm does not rest solely on its ability to affect student learning. The most successful educational initiatives are those that provide benefits to both teacher and learner. The inverted classroom falls into that category in a number of ways. First, it puts the primary focus of the class on the part of teaching that most professors find the most rewarding: interaction with their students. Even the most interactive lectures are likely to actively involve only a subset of the students. In the inverted classroom, the instructor works directly with individualstudentsduring contact hours. Most of their time, in this model, can be spent with those students that are struggling, as opposed to the traditional lecture where most of the questions posed during discussion come from the stronger students (while the strugglers are more likely to either be absent or sitting quietly at the back of the room). Second, in-class hands on activities not only engage the learner they engage the instructor. The conventional wis- dom in teaching is that the best class taught on a subject is when an instructor is teaching it for the third time. Dur- ing the first time, the primary goal is instructor survival. During the second, much of the preparation time is spent fixing the initial mistakes. Then, on the third teaching, the instructor has confidence with the material and their pre- sentation. So what about the next few times? The risk then is that boredom sets in. If the instructor is not excited about the material it is hard to hide it from the students. Also, even the most interesting class has at least one topic that the instructor dreads teaching. For a computer archi- tecture course, it may be binary arithmetic. For software engineering, it may be configuration management. With the inverted classroom, an instructor gives the lecture once, adding changes as needed from semester to semester, and instead can focus the bulk of their time and energy on the part of the class that is exciting and different from semester to semester: their students. Each semester brings a fresh group of students with their own individual approaches to the material: the best antidote to instructor boredom. Third, the inverted classroom provides an easy way to involve guest speakers in classroom instruction. In a class that covers a broad subject area, such as software engineer- ing, not all instructors will be equally adept at all topics. In addition, it may be beneficial to bring in some “outside voices”such as bringing in experienced industry profession- als. Trying to schedule guest speakers for a traditional lec- ture can be difficult. With the inverted classroom, speakers can deliver their portion of the lecture at their convenience. This relieves the instructor from having to structure their syllabus around guest speaker availability. Podcasting guest speakers also removes the risk of a guest speaker turning what should be an instructional experience for the students into a recruiting pitch for their company. 3.5 Lectures through Podcasting In previous work, we described how we used podcasting as the preferred medium for delivering content to students within an inverted classroom setting [10]. In that work, course lectures were produced as podcasts approximately one week prior to the corresponding assignments. The soft- ware used to produce the podcasts (all for the Mac) included ProfCast [11], for capturing Microsoft Powerpoint and Ap- ple Keynote presentations with voice overs, Snapz [12], for capturing full-motion presentations of software use (e.g., a “screencast”), iMovie [13], for capturing full-motion talking head lectures, and iWeb [13], for deploying the podcast on a standard web server. Blackboard [14] was used to save and deploy Powerpoint and PDF files, as well as for grade- book and assignment management. Students used either the iTunes music software system as a podcasting client, or a non-podcasting client such as a web browser to view video on a web page. For our current semester’s pilot courses using inverted classroom techniques, all content is being delivered through the Computer Science Courseware System (CSCW) [15]. The CSCW system has support for delivering podcasts di- rectly to podcasting client programs, such as Apple’s iTunes. Studentsare free toreceive lecturepodcasts automatically or to interactively download the content direct from the CSCW Web site. 3.6 Learning Activities Table 2 shows a general comparison of the quality and depth of learning activities for traditional and inverted class- room models of instruction. The experience of instructors may vary, but in general these comparisons hold. The num- ber of assignments, when usingtheinvertedclassroom model, can be much higher than in the traditional classroom model. Specifically, for some courses there can be one assignment per course contact hour (minus exams). As a result, it is much easier to have learning activities address specific out- comes. This is contrasted with traditional homework as- signments or projects that might target several learning out- comes at once. The feedback that can be provided to a stu- dent in the inverted classroom model is in many instances immediate. The level of interaction with students during course contact hours provides the ability to point students in the right direction and to give guidance as needed. In this way, students can be steered away from pitfalls and incorrect assumptions, allowing the students to use trial-and-error in their problem solving process. Finally, with respect to assignment depth, learning activi- ties in the invertedclassroom model, dueto time constraints, contain less depth than in the traditional model. This can be alleviated by creating assignments that span longer periods of time (two class periods). One model that has been em- ployed is to assign multi-part assignments with initial com- pletion occurring in class, and the final completion occurring outside of class. 3.7 Issues A number of concerns exist regarding the inverted class- a38 a39 a40 a41 a42 a43 a41 a44 a45 a42 a46 a44 a47 a43 a47 a48 a39 a46 a49 a50 a48 a51 a52 a47 a53 a54 a50 a48 a51 a52 a47 a53 a54 a55 a41 a49 a46 a56 a41 a44 a38 a57 a57 a41 a44 a47 a46 a43 a41 a52 a47 a53 a54 a50 a48 a51 a58 a59 a57 a60 a41 a42  a48 a61  a62 a63 a63 a47 a53 a39 a57 a41 a39 a43 a63 a64 a59 a43 a65 a48 a57 a41  a65 a48 a40 a41 a42 a46 a53 a41  a66 a41 a41 a44 a60 a46 a65 a67 a55 a41 a68 a43 a54  a68 a41 a42  a46 a63 a63 a47 a53 a39 a57 a41 a39 a43 Table 2: Comparison of Learning Activities room model of instruction. In this section, we describe each and provide discussion. I like to interact with students during lecture. Manytimes duringlecture in thetraditional lecturemodel, questions and discussion cause a “light” turn on in a stu- dent’s face. The lack of interaction in a podcasted lecture, as such, removes the ability of a student to ask a question to clarify some idea. To address this concern, students are asked to write down their questions and the time index of the podcasted material and to bring those questions to class. A certain amount of time is then devoted at the beginning of class to answer those questions. In addition, by using instant messaging, students can ask questions regarding a lecture being viewed. The instructor has the option of de- clining the message or answering it. Interaction with students is a cornerstone of the inverted classroom experience. The amount of interaction with stu- dents actually increases with this model. Anectdotally, we have found that the increased contact has made it easier to identify which students are struggling and which students are excelling. Do students come to class?. Student attendance should be mandatory when using the inverted classroom model. Since learning activities equate to graded homework assignments, there is often no choice as to whether students must attend or not. Skipping a class period results in a loss of points. Do students watch the podcasts?. It must be stressed to students that in order for students to be able to complete in-class assignments, the podcasts must be viewed and notes taken. By composing the learn- ing activities so that it relies on the lectured material, stu- dents quickly learn that the lecture materials are important and must be viewed. Our experience has shown that fail- ure to keep current on the lectured material often results in inability to complete assignments. What is the overhead?. The startup overhead of adopting the inverted classroom model can be significant. In the first semester that a course is taught using this model, lectures must be produced. From the standpoint of preparation time, the difference between the inverted classroom model and the traditional model is little. However, the production of the podcasts amounts to setting aside the time to record the lectures, which ends up being added up as prep time. Normally, the lecture would just be delivered during the class contact hours, which for a 3 credit hour course amounts to about 3 hours a week. The amount of time“lecturing”in the inverted classroom model varies since the amount of content to be delivered can be as little or as much as is wanted. Fortunately, in subsequent semesters, the amount of time producing lectures becomes much smaller since only short addendums or updates are needed. Another aspect of the overhead is the production of learn- ing activities. For some courses, new activities will need to be developed each semester. The number of learning ac- tivities that are produced increases significantly with the inverted classroom model since you may need to have one assignment ready per class period. Grading also increases since learning activities need to be evaluated. However, you can incorporate learner peer evaluation more readily in the inverted classroom model. It doesn’t fit my style of teaching. The inverted classroom model is learner-centered. It fo- cuses primarily upon the student and upon increasing the amount of interaction between the student and instructor. The approach is intendedto addressissues related to themil- lenial student and less upon the instructor teaching the mil- lenial. Ultimately, as with any teaching method, the most important factor is the learning outcome. Instructors may be effective in any style of teaching; the inverted classroom model is an alternative. How does this work for large classes?. The success of the inverted classroom model is dependent on the ability of the instructor to interact with the students as they complete their in-class activities. At Miami Uni- versity, the class sizes for the pilot courses was twenty-four (24) in Spring 2007. In our current semester’s pilot courses, the enrollment is forty-three (43) students for two sections of a data structures course and over eighty (80) students for three sections of a programming fundamentals course. For larger classes, providing the desirable amount of instructor- student interaction would necessitate breaking these classes into smaller sections and/or providing support from teach- ing assistants. For most software engineering courses, this model would require computer equipped classroom labora- tories so that the students would have access to the hard- ware and software required to complete their projects. Many schools with large Computer Science programs already fol- low a lecture-lab model where lectures are taught by in- structors and labs by teaching assistants. For the inverted classroom, it is important that the instructor themselves be present and involved during the in-class activities in order to realize many of the benefits of this approach. 4. SE CURRICULUM Software engineering is a process-centric discipline. The education of students in this field is best achieved through repetitive, hands-on, activities and projects in a collabora- tive environment that fosters communication between stake- holders. By using the inverted classroom, these activities can be easily modeled and repeated in order to provide stu- dents with a strong foundation on various aspects of the field. In this section, we present a model for integrating the use of the inverted classroom model for different courses into the software engineering curriculum. The curriculum that we present is based on the IEEE/ACM Software En- gineering Model Curriculum [4] (e.g., the SE 2004 Volume) and focuses primarily upon the software engineering specific courses. The entire curriculum includes some overlap with the Computer Science Model Curriculum [16]. In the dis- cussion below, we consider the Computer Science courses that serve as a direct line of pre-requisites for the SE 201 Introduction to Software Engineering course. Finally, the model focuses on starting software engineering in the sec- ond year [4]. 4.1 Overview of SE Courses The core software engineering curriculum is composed of the following sequence of courses [4]: CS 101I Fundamentals of Programming - covers fundamen- tal topics in programming including control structures. The “I” indicates an “imperative first” treatment of computing. CS 103I Data Structures and Algorithms - covers data struc- tures and data abstractions. SE 201 Introduction to Software Engineering - covers the foundations for software engineering by covering the prin- ciples and concepts of the field. SE 211 Software Construction - covers low-level design is- sues SE 212 Software Engineering Approach to HCI - covers the design and implementation of user interfaces SE 311 Software Design and Architecture - covers advanced software design including distributed systems and software architecture SE 321 Software Quality Assurance and Testing - covers soft- ware quality and testing SE 322 Software Requirements Analysis - covers software requirements elicitation, specification, and analysis SE 323 Software Project Management - covers project man- agement issues SE 400 Software Engineering Capstone - provides students experience in working on a year long project SE 4xx Software Engineering Special Topics - special top- ics in software engineering; content determined by faculty 4.2 Inversion In the remainder of this section, a model of how inver- sion applies to each of the courses listed above is presented. The content for each of the courses, as delivered through podcasting or some other medium, remains the same as is defined in the SE 2004 Volume [4]. Below we describe how learning activities can be structured during course contact hours to take advantage of the inverted classroom model. CS 101I Fundamentals of Programming. The Computing Curricula 2001 Volume does not give spe- cific guidance on learning activities for this course [16]. How- ever, this course is programming intensive, and thus is nat- urally suited for a laboratory dominated experience. The course contact hours in this course can be devoted to pro- gramming assignments performed in class. CS 103I Data Structures and Algorithms. As with the CS 101I course, the data structures and algo- rithms course is programming intensive and thus the course contact hours can be dominated by programming activities. SE 201 Introduction to Software Engineering. The traditional model for teaching SE 201 involves pre- senting lectures on a wide variety of topics ranging from soft- ware project inception through delivery and maintenance. In our experience teaching this course using a traditional lec- ture model, the homework assignments are used to provide learning activities on each of the major topics, and a sig- nificant semester long project provides teaming experience. Due to the amount of content in the course, in-class activi- ties in theform of laboratories or small group experiencesare limited. The use of inversion in this course alleviates three problems: coverage, experience, team coordination. With respect to coverage, use of the inverted classroom model al- lows the instructor to cover as much material as desired in the podcasting (or other delivery) format. In regards to experience, the freed contact hours can be used by the in- structor to model each of the software engineering activities in detail. For instance, when performing the requirements elicitation activity, the instructor can use the time to discuss an example of eliciting requirements, and involve the stu- dents in that example. In regards to team coordination, the contact hours can be used by student groups to hold meet- ings. The instructor can then be present during a number of those meetings to provide guidance, answer questions, or to observe student decision making processes. SE 211 Software Construction. The focus of the Software Construction course in the SE 2004 curriculum is on low-level design issues such as the use of parsers, the definition of protocols, application of formal methods, and tools for a wide variety of purposes including debugging, performance tuning, and model-driven develop- ment [4]. With such a wide variety of topics, all of which are tool driven and require knowledge and experience in the use of those tools, the application of the inverted classroom is natural. The course contact hours can be devoted to short in-class assignments that focus on the use of the tools. The benefit of the inversion of this course is that the instructor and teaching assistants can be present in laboratory-like en- vironment, providing guidance on how to resolve various is- sues that arise in using thetools. In our experience with sim- ilar kinds of environments, we have found that short single session assignments provide students with initial experience on getting started with a technology. Longer multi-session assignments, on the other hand, provide students the oppor- tunity for self-paced discovery needed for optimal learning to occur. SE 212 Software Engineering Approach to HCI. The SE 2004 Volume identifies the following as suggested assignments and laboratories [4]: evaluation of user inter- faces using heuristic evaluation, evaluation using videotaped observations, protyping of interfaces, writers workshops for critiquing prototypes, and construction of significant user in- terfaces using rapid prototyping. The process of developing user interfaces is highly iterative and requires a great deal of interaction with a user. In the traditional model, where homework and laboratories are performed outside of class, getting the amount of feedback necessary to properly model the UI design activity can be a challenge. By using the in- verted classroom model, the contact hours can be used to thoroughly involve students in a collaborative and iterative experience that involves users and other participants. SE 311 Software Design and Architecture. The SE 2004 Volume identifies the following topics as relevant to this course: design patterns, study of middle- ware, examination of case studies, application of metrics, and study of reverse and re-engineering [4]. In regards to learning activities, the SE 2004 volume is sparse. However, given the above topics, the course contact hours in an in- verted classroom model can focus on short, one hour prac- tice activities or longer case study activities that reinforce knowledge in the above areas. Software design activities, es- pecially thecreation of models, benefit greatly from iteration and reinforcement. The assignments and activities provided during class contact hours in this course can also include the analysis of requirements in order to construct software archi- tectures, the use of modeling and different modeling tools, and analysis and review of design models. SE 321 Software Quality Assurance and Testing. Software testing is a significant activity in the software development process. The SE 2004 Volume identifies the use of automated tools, practice in testing a variety of sys- tems, application of different testing techniques, and use of inspections as the primary laboratory and assignment ac- tivities for this course [4]. By using the inverted classroom model, contact hours can be devoted solely to the activity of testing software or on the application of alternative quality assurance techniques, such as design reviews, inspections, or formal analysis. A large number open-source software projects that are available for use in such an activity, pro- viding the opportunity for a rich experience. The in-class contact hours provide the opportunity to perform all of these course activities in a collaborative manner. SE 322 Software Requirements Analysis. The SE 2004 Volume identifies the following activities and labs as being relevant for the requirements activity [4]: con- struction of requirements, analysis of systems to determine qualities and to reverse engineer requirements, interviewing users, use of tools for managing requirements, modeling of requirements with UML, and resolving feature interactions. An important aspect of the requirements activity is the in- teraction with customers and users to determine the desired behaviors and applicable constraints for the system to be developed. Using inversion provides an opportunity to reg- ularly schedule contact with customers or users. The ded- icated contact hours also provides the instructors with the opportunity to demonstrate various aspects of the require- ments phase through role playing or other activities that model the practice. In addition, the contact hours can be used to provide students with experience in using the tools necessary to manage and model requirements. SE 323 Software Project Management. The SE 2004 Volume identifies a number of activities that are appropriate for laboratories and assignments in the SE 323 course [4]. These include gaining experience using soft- ware project management tools, creating cost estimates for projects, evaluatingsoftware licenses, anddevelopingproject and configuration management plans. Each of these activi- ties would benefitfrom thecollaborative experienceprovided by inversion of the classroom. a69 a70 a71 a72 a73 a74 a75 a76 a77 a69 a78 a69 a69 a69 a70 a69 a71 a69 a72 a69 a73 a69 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a87 a88 a86 a85 a81 a82 a89 a90 a86 a88 a91 a91 a92 a89 a87 a88 a83 a89 a93 a86 a82 a83 a80 a88 a83 a89 a86 a87 a93 a94 a91 a93 a94 a88 a83 a81 a95 a84 a82 a89 a86 a81 a82 a82 a91 a94 a93 a87 a81 a82 a82 a81 a82  a88 a82  a88  a96 a84 a86 a85 a88 a97 a81 a86 a83 a88 a92  a85 a94 a89 a98 a81 a94  a96 a93 a94  a91 a88 a94 a83 a89 a83 a89 a93 a86 a89 a86 a90 a99 a70 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a87 a88 a86 a89 a85 a81 a86 a83 a89 a96 a100 a88 a86 a85 a85 a81 a82 a87 a94 a89 a95 a81 a83 a80 a81 a91 a94 a89 a97 a88 a94 a100 a89 a82 a82 a84 a81 a82 a94 a81 a92 a88 a83 a81 a85 a83 a93 a83 a80 a81 a84 a82 a81 a93 a96 a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 r a93 a94 a89 a81 a86 a83 a81 a85 a88 a94 a87 a80 a89 a83 a81 a87 a83 a84 a94 a81 a82 a88 a86 a85 a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 r a93 a94 a89 a81 a86 a83 a81 a85 a99 a71 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a87 a88 a86 a85 a81 a98 a81 a92 a93 a91 a101 a81 a95 a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 a82 a84 a82 a89 a86 a90 a102 a103 a88 a86 a85 a83 a80 a81 a104 a105 a106 a107 a108 a109 a79 a91 a92 a88 a83 a96 a93 a94 a97 a71 a88 a79 a80 a81  a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83  a87 a88 a86  a87 a94 a81 a88 a83 a81  a102 a103  a91 a94 a93 a90 a94 a88 a97 a82 a99 a99 a99 a99 a99 a71 a95 a79 a80 a81  a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83  a87 a88 a86  a87 a94 a81 a88 a83 a81  a101 a81 a95  a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 a82  a84 a82 a89 a86 a90  a102 a103 a99 a99 a71 a87 a79 a80 a81  a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83  a87 a88 a86  a87 a94 a81 a88 a83 a81  a102 a103  a88 a91 a91 a92 a89 a87 a88 a83 a89 a93 a86 a82  a83 a80 a88 a83  a84 a83 a89 a92 a89 a110 a81  a101 a81 a95  a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 a82 a99 a99 a72 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a87 a88 a86 a85 a81 a98 a81 a92 a93 a91 a101 a81 a95 a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 a82 a84 a82 a89 a86 a90 a111 a88 a98 a88 a88 a86 a85 a83 a80 a81 a104 a91 a88 a87 a80 a81 a104 a112 a89 a82  a91 a92 a88 a83 a96 a93 a94 a97 a72 a88 a79 a80 a81  a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83  a87 a88 a86  a87 a94 a81 a88 a83 a81  a111 a88 a98 a88  a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 a82 a99 a99 a72 a95 a79 a80 a81  a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83  a87 a88 a86  a87 a94 a81 a88 a83 a81  a111 a88 a98 a88  a88 a91 a91 a92 a89 a87 a88 a83 a89 a93 a86 a82  a83 a80 a88 a83  a84 a83 a89 a92 a89 a110 a81  a101 a81 a95  a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 a82 a99 a99 a99 a99 a99 a73 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a101 a89 a92 a92 a95 a81 a88 a95 a92 a81 a83 a93 a89 a85 a81 a86 a83 a89 a96 a100 a83 a80 a81 a91 a84 a94 a91 a93 a82 a81 a93 a96 a98 a88 a94 a89 a93 a84 a82 a83 a81 a87 a80 a86 a93 a92 a93 a90 a89 a81 a82 a89 a86 a83 a80 a81 a101 a81 a95 a82 a81 a94 a98 a89 a87 a81 a82 a82 a83 a88 a87 a113 a89 a86 a87 a92 a84 a85 a89 a86 a90 a99 a114 a115 a116 a105 a117 a104 a106 a116 a118 a105 a119 a115 a116 a88 a86 a85  a118 a105 a119 a115 r a99 a99 a73 a88 a79 a80 a81  a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83  a87 a88 a86  a87 a94 a81 a88 a83 a81  a88 a86  a99 a114 a115  a82 a87 a80 a81 a97 a88 a99 a73 a95 a79 a80 a81  a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83  a87 a88 a86  a87 a94 a81 a88 a83 a81  a88 a86  a99 a114 a115  a85 a93 a87 a84 a97 a81 a86 a83 a99 a73 a87 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a87 a88 a86 a89 a85 a81 a86 a83 a89 a96 a100 a88 a86 a85 a94 a81 a87 a93 a90 a86 a89 a110 a81 a85 a89 a96 a96 a81 a94 a81 a86 a83 a88 a82 a91 a81 a87 a83 a82 a93 a96 a88 a86 a99 a114 a115 a105 a117 a104 a106  a97 a81 a82 a82 a88 a90 a81 a99 a73 a85 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a87 a88 a86 a89 a85 a81 a86 a83 a89 a96 a100 a88 a86 a85 a94 a81 a87 a93 a90 a86 a89 a110 a81 a83 a80 a81 a94 a81 a92 a88 a83 a89 a93 a86 a82 a80 a89 a91 a95 a81 a83 a101 a81 a81 a86 a105 a117 a104 a106  a88 a86 a85  a118 a105 a119 a115 a99 a73 a81 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a87 a88 a86 a89 a85 a81 a86 a83 a89 a96 a100 a88 a86 a85 a94 a81 a87 a93 a90 a86 a89 a110 a81 a85 a89 a96 a96 a81 a94 a81 a86 a83 a88 a82 a91 a81 a87 a83 a82 a93 a96 a88 a86 a99 a114 a115 a118 a105 a119 a115  a85 a93 a87 a84 a97 a81 a86 a83 a99 a73 a96 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a81 a86 a83 a87 a88 a86 a85 a81 a82 a87 a94 a89 a95 a81 a85 a89 a96 a96 a81 a94 a81 a86 a83 a120 a84 a88 a92 a89 a83 a100 a88 a83 a83 a94 a89 a95 a84 a83 a81 a82 a94 a81 a92 a88 a83 a81 a85 a83 a93 a118 a105 a119 a115 a121 a105 a117 a104 a106  a88 a86 a85  a122 a109 a105 a79 a99 a115 a81 a88 a94 a86 a89 a86 a90  a104 a87 a83 a89 a98 a89 a83 a89 a81 a82 Table 3: Outcomes Matrix for Pilot Course SE 400 Software Engineering Capstone. Contact hours for the capstone course should be entirely devoted to project activities including the holding of meet- ings, construction of software development artifacts, soft- ware development, and testing. The lecture component of the capstone can then be devoted to the delivery of special topic content or other information that is perhaps relevant to the completion of the assigned projects. SE 4xx Special Topics in Software Engineering. Special topics courses in a software engineering program can vary widely depending on the focus of various instruc- tors. Later in this paper describe our experiences with a special topics course on service-oriented computing and web services. 5. PRELIMINARY RESULTS To date we have applied the use of the inverted class- room in one computing course at Miami University. The first course to undergo the piloting of the inverted classroom for computing was a special topics course on service-oriented architecture (SOA) and web services [10]. As of the writing of this paper, two more courses are in progress using this model, a CS101I equivalent course entitled “Fundamentals of Programming and Problem Solving”and a CS103I equiva- lent entitled“Data Abstractions and Data Structures”. Two more courses are scheduled for the Spring Semester (a re- peat of the SOA course and a repeat of the data structures course). 5.1 Service Oriented Architecture The offering of this course was the first to use the inverted classroom model for computing at Miami University. The podcasted lecture materials for this course consisted of ap- proximately sixty-five (65) separate podcast episodes rang- ing in duration of just a few minutes to approximately fifty (50) minutes. The lecture materials consisted of video blogs, Powerpoint presentations with voice overs, and screencasts showing examples of using various software engineering tools including sessions with Eclipse, the Eclipse debugger, Visual Studio, and other tools relevant to the development of web services. Table 3 shows a course outcomes matrix that maps course outcomes to the learning activities for the course. The gray bars indicate top level outcomes for which there are refined outcomes. For instance, outcome four (4 The student can develop web services using Java and the Apache Axis plat- form) has been refined to have two child outcomes (4a The student can create Java services and 4b The student can cre- ate Java applications that utilize web services). The course consisted of fifteen (15) learning activities that were often 1 to 2 contact hours in duration. The table shows which course outcomes were covered by various learning activities. The course also included a significant project which stu- dents proposed at midterm and completed by the end of the semester. Student response to the course was overwhelm- ingly positive, especially in regards to the use of the inverted classroom model. Table 4 shows an indirect assessment of one of the out- comes for the course. While there is no long-term data from which to compare these results with, it does show that at the very least from the standpoint of the learners, that an outcome of the course was being met. In the table, the left side of each column shows number of responses at the be- ginning of the semester and the right side of each column shows the responses at the end of the semester. The data shows that from the viewpoint of the students, that some level of learning occurred, thus moving the responses from largely “disagree”to“strongly agree”. 10 12 14 I can create C# applications that utilize web services Pre semester Post semester 0 2 4 6 8 Str on gly  Ag ree Agre e Ne ith er Ag ree or  Dis ag ree Dis ag ree Str on gly  Dis ag ree No t Ap pli cab le Table 4: Outcome 3c Assessment A peer review of the course from a colleague that attended the course for the entire semester yielded some of the follow- ing comments: • The instructor used a variety of class activities, as ap- propriate. The primary in-class activity was the in- class assignments which is appropriate for the inverted classroom model. • The visual presentation was clearly visible and legible. The software demonstration podcasts were particularly effective learning tools. I often found myself going back over these podcasts to complete an in-class assignment or to pick up a point that I had glossed over. I may try to do something similar to this the next time I need to introduce a piece of software, as students tend to tune out during software demonstrations in class. A few comments regarding certain issues with the inverted classroom were as follows: • The instructor encouraged student participation and gave students time to respond. Students had the op- portunity to ask questions about the podcasts at the be- ginning of each class. This did not happen very often. I am not sure why it happened this way. Jerry seemed very open to questions and very non-threatening when a student asked a question. There were some ques- tions about assignments, but very few about lecture material. Perhaps the inverted classroom model elicits fewer questions due to the time gap between viewing the podcast material and seeing the instructor or perhaps the students did not have time to view the podcasts. • The students seemed to be actively engaged in the les- son. Certainly the students were actively engaged in the in-class assignment which is one of the beauties of the inverted classroom model. I’m not sure everyone was engaged during the introduction at the beginning. Some students were working at their laptops and there was a small group of students in the back that seemed to carry on their own conversation. Perhaps as Jerry perfects this style of teaching, the in-class assignments can be distributed ahead of time and students can get to work more quickly. 5.2 Data Structures In the Fall Semester of 2007 we are in process of piloting the use of the inverted classroom for the data abstraction and data structures course. The course is using the same model as the one used for the web services course in the sense that podcasting is being used as the primary medium for delivering course content, and that the learning activ- ities are performed during the course contact hours. The course consists of two (2) sections with a total of three (3) contact hours per week for each. Enrollment in the course consists of approximately forty (40) students. The philoso- phy of the course is based on the notion that repetition and reinforcement when learning programming is paramount. As such, rather than just a handful of programming projects, a greater volume of short programming assignments are given in class. For this course, approximately twenty-four (24) programming assignments are planned in addition to one significant programming project. 5.3 Fundamentals of Programming For the Fall Semester of 2007, three sections of Fundamen- tals of Programming and Problem Solving at Miami Uni- versity are using the inverted classroom to deliver lecture content to over eighty (80) students. Applying the inverted classroom to this class is significant since we are reaching a large number of students in their first programming class. Fundamentals of Programming and Problem Solving is the first course for our computer science majors, minors, and is taken by students from other majors such as physics, math- ematics, and management information systems. In this particular pilot section, we are using a hybrid tech- nique in applying the inverted classroom. Our three (3) contact hours each week are divided up into one (1) hour of lecture time and two (2) hours of lab time. The lecture hour is used as a time to review issues from the previous week, discuss issues with the current weekly programming assignment, and to preview the material in the upcoming podcasts. For this course, our podcast lectures are targeted towards specifictopics and are purposelykeptshort in length (15 to 30 minutes). This allows students to digest one topic at a time, and apply this knowledge in the lab. In previous offerings of this course, students would com- plete eight (8) programming assignments (each two weeks in length). This schedule forced multiple topics to be intro- duced intoeach programming assignment, often causing con- fusion about when and how to apply each concept. For the current semester, we have planned for twenty-nine (29) pro- gramming assignments. Fourteen of these assignments are shorter lab assignments that are intended to be completed in a single one (1) hour lab session. Each of these assignments introduces exactly one new concept into the body of pro- gramming knowledge. The remaining contact hour is used to allow students to begin working on the larger programming assignment for the week. These programming assignments build on the concept introduced in the weekly lab session, incorporate concepts from previous weeks, and sometimes introduce a second concept for the week. This gradual in- troduction to programming concepts and constructs allows students to achieve success rapidly. The use of CSCW’s [15] integrated automatic grading allows students to receive in- stant feedback on the functionality of their code and the time spent working the lab with the instructor present helps to set students in the correct direction on the project. In addition to the introduction of the inverted classroom to this course, we have simultaneously introduced pair pro- gramming into the course. After ensuring that all students individually could work in the programming environment and successfully submit programs for grading, all students were paired (with groups of three in sections with odd en- rollment numbers). The use of pair programming has been shown to increase student confidence in their programs, to make programming more enjoyable experience, and to aid in student learning simply by encouraging greater partici- pation in the homework process [17]. A recent study has shown that pair programming has benefits for all students, and even more beneficial for women in computing-related majors in terms of confidence and retention [18]. As addi- tional motivation, interviews with students have shown that students view pair programming as beneficial in their learn- ing to program [19]. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK At Miami University, the inverted classroom model of in- struction has been used in a variety of fields including eco- nomics, marketing, and now computer science. The ap- proach takes advantage of the benefits of both collabora- tive learning and distance learning while at the same time targeting the millenial student. In this paper, we have pre- sented a model for using the inverted classroom for software engineering related courses and described our experiences in using the inverted classroom on a few pilot courses. At the conclusion of the Fall 2007 Semester, we plan on interview- ing students on both our Fundamentals of Programing and Problem Solving and Data Structures and Data Abstrac- tion courses. These interviews will capture the students’ as- sessment of how inverted classroom techniques impact their learning and success in software engineering courses. Future investigations include piloting the inverted classroom model on a few select courses including the SE 201 Introduction to Software Engineering course. In addition, we will be study- ing the impact of using the inverted classroom on instructor workload as we embark on repeat use of the approach in the Service Oriented Architecture and Web Services Course as well as the Data Structures and Data Abstraction course at Miami University. 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to Dr. Donald Byrkett who audited and provided the peer review on the pilot course. 8. REFERENCES [1] Maureen J. Lage, Glenn J. Platt, and Michael Treglia. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1):30–43, Winter 2000. [2] Gardner Campbell. There’s Something in the Air: Podcasting in Education. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(6):32–47, November/December 2005. [3] iTunesU. http://www.apple.com/education/itunes u/ (Visited Oct 10, 2007). [4] Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. Software Engineering 2004: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Proposals in Software Engineering. http://sites.computer.org/ccse (Visited October 03, 2007), 2004. [5] David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson. Instructional Goal Structure: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44(2):213–240, Spring 1974. [6] Suzanne W. Dietrich and Susan D. Urban. A Cooperative Learning Approach to Database Group Projects: Integrating Theory and Practice. IEEE Transactions on Education, 41:14, 1998. [7] John D. Tvedt, Roseanne Tesoriero, and Kevin A. Gary. The Software Factory: Combining Undergraduate Computer Science and Software Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 633–642. IEEE, 2001. [8] Jason L. Frand. The Information-Age Mindset: Changes in Students and Implications for Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5):15–24, September–October 2000. [9] Joel Foreman. Next-Generation Educational Technology versus the Lecture. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5):12–22, September/October 2003. [10] Gerald C. Gannod. WIP: Using podcasting in an inverted classroom. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, 2007. [11] Profcast. http://www.profcast.com (Visited Oct 6, 2007). [12] Snapz pro. http://www.ambrosiasw.com (Visited Oct 6, 2007). [13] ilife. http://www.apple.com/ilife (Visited Oct 6, 2007). [14] Blackboard. http://www.blackboard.com/us/index.Bb (Visited Oct 6, 2007). [15] Michael T. Helmick. Integrated online courseware for computer science courses. In ITiCSE ’07: Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pages 146–150, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM Press. [16] Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. Computing Curricula 2001: Computer Science. http://www.sigcse.org/cc2001 (Visited Oct 6, 2007), December 2001. [17] Brian Hanks, Charlie McDowell, David Draper, and Milovan Krnjajic. Program quality with pair programming in cs1. In ITiCSE ’04: Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pages 176–180, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. [18] Linda L. Werner, Brian Hanks, and Charlie McDowell. Pair-programming helps female computer science students. J. Educ. Resour. Comput., 4(1):4, 2004. [19] Beth Simon and Brian Hanks. First year students’ impressions of pair programming in cs1. In ICER ’07: Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research, pages 73–86, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM Press.