The Flip Side in Higher Education

Framework

Review of the Literature
In recent years, the flipped classroom model of instruction showed promise for some students in the K-12 setting (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). In this model, what occurs during class time, such as lectures and demonstrations, occurs out of class through assignments that enable students to gain new content knowledge. Then, during class time, students apply what they have learned in activities in which the instructor provides the necessary scaffolding to help students internalize newly acquired knowledge. This model is based upon several theoretically sound and research-based features, including multiple theoretical perspectives, opportunities for differentiating instruction, increased teacher/student interactions, and the use of current technology.

Theoretical perspectives. We draw upon several useful theoretical perspectives for situating the flipped classroom model of learning, including the idea that learning requires active participation on the part of the learner (Piaget, 1971). In the flipped classroom model, students are exposed to a variety of activities within the classroom to apply their newly gained knowledge. The flipped classroom also embraces a socio-constructivist theory of learning inviting students to be active participants in their own learning with the support of the instructor (Vygotsky, 1978). Through careful reflection about their own thinking and actions--a reflection that leads to metacognitive awareness, students come to realize that they are in control of what they learn about the topic under study. This self-regulated learning is at the heart of the flipped classroom concept. Still another theoretical lens for examining flipped classrooms is activity theory. Activity theory is based upon the notion that learning occurs within some system of activity and that these systems can be analyzed from a socio-cultural stance (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999).

Differentiated instruction. The flipped classroom provides the infrastructure needed to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners found in classrooms today. There is a considerable body of literature that substantiates the importance and effectiveness of differentiated instruction (e.g., Kryza, Duncan, Stevens, 2010; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Studies have focused on differentiated instruction across a variety of disciplines as well as age groups showing positive results, such as differentiated mathematical instruction with college students (Chamberlin & Powers, 2010), a special education teacher’s perspective (Ernest, Heckaman, Thompson, Hull, & Carter, 2011), and reading achievement of elementary students (Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller, & Burcu, 2011).

Teacher/student interaction. Teacher/student interaction is an important predictor of the classroom climate in which learning can occur (Rosenthal, 1994). Furthermore, the quality of teacher/student interaction has a direct impact on student academic achievement as well as student attitudes about learning (Connor, Son, Hindman, & Morrison, 2005; den Brok, van Tartwijk, Wubbels, & Veldman, 2010). This model allows teachers and teacher educators the opportunity to work more closely and more frequently with individual students building important rapport and interactions and providing essential feedback as students apply newly acquired understandings of content--all of which encourage learning.

Current technology. The many forms of technology available and easily accessible today are important in supporting the use of the flipped classroom model. These different platforms for learning enable educators to develop sound and effective learning opportunities to help students grapple with new information across a variety of disciplines. In person or face-to-face teaching is the modality used most often with the flipped classroom model. Mobile technology available has a role in how students access information for this model (Alexander, 2004). One study found using and accessing material from a mobile device allowed students more opportunities to participate in course activities (Jimenez, 2020). The pandemic has changed the way we think about online and in-person teaching. This includes how the flipped classroom model is used in various modalities.

Methods

Research Questions
1.  What perspectives do faculty in the professional sciences have about the flipped classroom model of teaching in higher education?
2.  Does the flipped classroom model of learning impact student achievement of science specific content in a higher education environment?
3. What challenges and successes do higher education faculty have in using the flipped classroom model for in-person and online teaching modalities?

Methodology of the Research
The participants in this study were two university professors who taught in the sciences. Both qualitative and quantitative measures were used. Following a multiple case study design (Yin, 2009), qualitative data sources included interviews, observations, and documents that support each faculty member’s use of the model. For the quantitative data, anonymous archival student achievement data were collected from previous courses for each faculty participant.

Analysis
All qualitative data collected were coded using an open coding approach within the NVIVO software. These data were categorized by themes that arose from the initial examination of the data. The archival student achievement data is still in the process of being analyzed and will use inferential statistics to analyze relationships between dependent and independent variables. To answer the research question, multiple regression will be conducted (Salkind, 2004).

Results

Preliminary findings suggest that the use of the flipped classroom model of instruction may be influenced by student preferences for this model. In this study, one professor stated this model of teaching has shown remarkable success with undergraduate students of various academic levels. Another professor in this study has shown an increase in academic achievement of graduate students. Further disaggregation of data is still needed for complete results of this study.

Importance

Educational Importance
There are many studies in regard to the flipped classroom model of instruction in higher education. Many of these studies (Vaughn, 2014; Debbağ, M., Yıldız, S., 2021; Kurt, G., 2017; Yoshida, H., 2016; Gough, E., DeJong, D., Grundmeyer, T., & Baron, M., 2017; Schmidt, S. M. P., & Ralph, D. L., 2016) show the use of the flipped classroom model in education courses with preservice teachers. For example, Flores, Ò., del-Arco, I. & Silva, P. (2016) determined that this model improved communication and participation as well as academic success for education students in a pedagogy class. However, there is a dearth of research in the area of the flipped classroom model in higher education in professional schools (optometry) and chemistry. This study focuses on the faculty perspectives of this model of instruction and the impact on student achievement as well as the modalities in which the courses were taught.

This research study is valuable for higher education faculty designing courses for various modalities or instructional designers that support faculty in designing courses.

References

Alexander, B. (2004). Going nomadic: Mobile learning in higher education. Educause Review, 39(5), 29-35.

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day.
International society for technology in education.

Chamberlain, M., & Powers, R. (2010). The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing mathematical
understandings of college students. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 29, 113-139.

Connor, C., Son, S. H., Hindman, A. H., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Teacher qualifications, classroom practices,
family characteristics, and preschool experience: complex effects on first graders’ vocabulary and early learning outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 343-375.

Debbağ, M., Yıldız, S. (2021). Effect of the flipped classroom model on academic achievement and motivation in teacher education. Education and Information Technology 26, 3057–3076 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10395-x.

den Brok, P., van Tartwijk, J.,Wubbels, T., & Veldman, I. (2010). The differential effect of the teacher-student
interpersonal relationship on student outcomes for students with different ethnic backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 199e221.

Ernest, J.M., K.A. Heckaman, S.E. Thompson, K.M. Hull, & S.W. Carter (2011). Increasing the teaching
efficacy of a beginning special education teacher using differentiated instruction: A
case study. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 191-201.

Flores, Ò., del-Arco, I. & Silva, P. (2016). The flipped classroom model at the university: analysis based on professors’ and students’ assessment in the educational field. International Journal Educational Technology Higher Education 13, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0022-1

Gough, E., DeJong, D., Grundmeyer, T., & Baron, M. (2017). K-12 Teacher Perceptions Regarding the Flipped Classroom Model for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(3), 390–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516658444

Jimenez, W. C. (2020). Adult students' perceptions of mobile assisted language learning in oral English courses. Revista de Lenguas Modernas 31(3), 35-40.

Jonassen, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning
environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.

Kryza, K., Duncan, A., & Stephens, S.J. (2010). Differentiation for real classrooms: Making it simple, making
it work. Corwin Press.

Kurt, G. (2017). Implementing the flipped classroom in teacher education: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 211-221.

Piaget, J. (1971). Genetic epistemology. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Reis, S.M., D.B. McCoach, C.A. Little, L. Muller, & R. Burcu (2010). The effects of differentiated instruction
and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Education Research Journal, (48)2, 462-501.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Interpersonal expectations: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 3, 176-179.

Salkind, N. J. (2004). Statistics for people who hate statistics. Thousand Oakes.

Schmidt, S. M. P., & Ralph, D. L. (2016). The Flipped Classroom: A Twist on Teaching. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 9(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v9i1.9544

Tomlinson, C.A., & J. McTighe (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design:
Connecting content and kids. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Vaughan, M. (2014). Flipping the learning: An investigation into the use of the flipped classroom model in an introductory teaching course. Education Research and Perspectives, 41, 25-41.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The Canadian Journal
of Action Research, 14(1), 69-71.

Yoshida, H. (2016). Perceived usefulness of" flipped learning" on instructional design for elementary and secondary education: With focus on pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(6), 430.