Objective. To determine if a flipped classroom improved student examination performance in a pharmacotherapy oncology module. Design. Third-year pharmacy students in 2012 experienced the oncology module as interactive lectures with optional case studies as supplemental homework. In 2013, students experienced the same content in a primarily flipped classroom. Students were instructed to watch vodcasts (video podcasts) before in-class case studies but were not held accountable (ie, quizzed) for preclass preparation. Examination questions were identical in both cohorts. Performance on examination questions was compared between the two cohorts using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with prior academic performance variables (grade point average [GPA]) as covariates. Assessment. The students who experienced the flipped classroom approach performed poorer on examination questions than the cohort who experienced interactive lecture, with previous GPA used as a covariate. Conclusion. A flipped classroom does not necessarily improve student performance. Further research is needed to determine optimal classroom flipping techniques.

For many business segments, true “out of the box” innovation occurs in entrepreneurial companies where the founders aren’t hindered with the research paradigms established by mainstream businesses. The founders of these companies, many times technologists and scientists, see the application of the technology long before potential customers develop an understanding of the capabilities that the new technology can bring to the marketplace. Many times these “new technology ideas” have been developed though modifying an existing dominant design (product or service) to meet an unforeseen market need or through the development of a new design that may become the new industry standard. The competitors of tomorrow may reside in radically different markets yet have the insight to envision the application or modification of an existing technology to a market segment that they are currently not involved in. Teaching engineering technology students techniques and visioning tactics related to the innovation process has been difficult. Several of the authors have experienced, both in the classroom and in industrial settings, that many engineering and engineering technology students see innovation as the application of engineering principals resulting in small incremental changes in a process. Although these changes may result in a more efficient process through increased productivity, reduced waste, faster cycle times, etcetera; continuous improvement projects many times do not generate the dramatic market changes seen with a new dominant design. In fact in many established industries, disruptive innovation is discouraged in favor of continuous innovation because of the uncertainty of the risk/reward quotient and the impact that failed experimentation (increased research and development costs) can have on Wall Street’s perception of a company. Our university recently merged the colleges of Business and Technology and Applied Sciences resulting in a cross-pollinated faculty and the establishment of courses in the graduate and undergraduate curriculum where business and engineering technology student’s work together on class projects, many of which involve an innovation component. It is interesting that many of the faculty who incorporate a discussion or exercise related to the innovation process in their classroom have had extensive experience in an industrial setting prior to joining the university faculty. Industry seasoned faculty bring their “real-world” experience to the classroom and challenge students to move beyond continuous improvement projects. In several cases, ideas generated in the classroom or through collaborative efforts between the business and technology faculty have resulted in prototypes being built in the laboratory for further testing of the prospective innovation. The presence of a technology-centered business incubator located within walking distance from campus provides students the opportunity to observe several high technology businesses that have developed new technology niches in established market segments. These businesses provide consulting opportunities for cross-disciplinary graduate student teams to observe the challenges of introducing a new technology to address previously met market needs through introduction of a superior product. The business incubator is further linked to a sister technology-centered business incubator in Europe providing students (graduate and undergraduate) the opportunity to evaluate if a new technology should be launched initially in the United States or Europe. The creation of these learning opportunities mimic the industrial setting where graduates will be required to operate in cross-disciplinary teams that may address global manufacturing and marketing decisions. This paper discusses the pedagogical approaches several faculty members have developed to introduce and cultivate a creative innovation process to undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in technology engineering and business marketing and management classes. These approaches include identifying unmet market niche opportunities, identifying technologies utilized in alternative markets that could be utilized for different market segments, classroom exercises to compel students to search existing patent literature, ideation and brainstorming exercises and researching business entities to identify their technology strategy and implementation plans.

University managed technology-based business incubators evolved at major research institutions as a mechanism for university professors to pursue commercial applications of their research without having to resign their university positions. These incubators assisted the universities in retention of valuable faculty and also provided for the development of university intellectual property (IP) to a level where commercialization was probable. In addition to faculty retention and the potential for revenue from commercialization of IP, these incubators further developed the universities’ reputations in producing cutting edge research. The physical proximity of the incubators to the universities is crucial because this allows easy access to university intellectual capital, equipment and skilled technical labor that enable fledgling businesses to survive and flourish. Many regional universities are adding an emphasis on research and community economic development to their primary mission of teaching. As a result they are establishing business incubators. The goals for these incubators include creation of an environment and culture for the establishment of student driven companies, improvement of commercialization of university intellectual property, enhancement of the ability to attract technology-based businesses and provision of a living laboratory for student to work within the entrepreneurial environment. Just as is the case for the traditional research universities, business incubators at regional universities provide the supporting infrastructure that permits the university faculty to take advantage of SBIR and STTR programs to launch businesses and move university IP toward commercialization. In addition, the formation of a university-managed business incubator provides an excellent environment for non-university established technology businesses to benefit from the advantages of university faculty, personnel, students and graduates in both consulting and employee positions. Establishing a university managed technology-based business incubator at a regional university requires a strategic vision that integrates the universities core competencies, academic and research missions, senior administration concerns, capital and building campaigns and economic development concerns of the surrounding communities. This paper proposes a conceptual framework for building the strategic vision, developing the necessary infrastructure and mitigating risks when establishing the incubator. In addition, a discussion of lessons learned through the establishment of our university managed technology-based incubator at ETSU is presented through a mini-case study.

This experimental study examines an online module designed to increase student competence in oral citation behavior using a mastery training strategy. Students in the experimental condition provided complete citations at a higher rate and provided more citation information for traditional and web-based sources compared with a control group without required training. Although subjective norms set by instructors also influence citation behavior, the general trend depicted was that students completing the required module training performed more complete citations. Implications for student learning, mastery instruction, and course assessment were considered to be generally beneficial and at minimal cost.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Excerpt: In 2010, the state of Tennessee embraced the call to overhaul teacher education and required programs to adopt a residency model within K‐12 schools.

This presentation will review technology used in programs that have successfully supervised students at a distance. Additionally, one university will outline their path to provide distant supervision. Participants will learn of technologies available along with struggles and successes of supervising students in rural placements.

This research encompasses many aspects of chemical education research including curriculum and pedagogical changes to the freshman and sophomore courses. Curriculum changes included the addition of recitations to the general chemistry and organic chemistry lectures and the creation of four new classes, CHEM 1001, 1002, 3091, and 3092. The addition of recitations was not limited to but was focused on improving DFW rates for these courses. CHEM 3091 and 3092 are chemistry internship and undergraduate teaching assistant classes. These courses were necessary to offer outside internship opportunities and training for undergraduate teaching assistants, respectively. CHEM 1001 and 1002 are chemistry classes for nonscience majors. These courses were created to attempt to increase the number of nonscience major students choosing chemistry to complete their science requirement. CHEM 1001 and 1002 were courses not offered at any other university and required that the course materials and textbooks for these classes to be created from scratch without any foundation from other courses. An unforeseen consequence of the creation of these courses was the need to improve scientific communication between scientists and non-scientists and even scientist and scientist. Pedagogical work included a video intensive lecture style (VILS) for disseminating the material in the newly created CHEM 1001 and 1002 courses. For general chemistry and organic chemistry lecture, the major change was the addition of required recitation sessions for these courses. Further pedagogical changes to the organic lecture included introduction of video lectures, implementation of active learning in the lecture and graded, online homework.