By: Mary Ritchie
Since first being introduced in the early 2000s (e.g., Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000), the concept of the flipped classroom has taken on a variety of forms. While there has yet to be a single established definition or model (Tucker, 2012), the flipped classroom can be understood as a method of teaching with the intention of promoting active, rather than passive, learning in the classroom (Haak, HilleRisLambers, Pitre, & Freeman, 2011; Porcaro, Jackson, McLaughlin, & O’Malley, 2016; Smith, 2014). In a flipped classroom, students are often asked to view pre-recorded lectures outside of class time and focus on completing activities that build off of these pre-recorded lectures during class (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2016; Findlay-Thompson & Mombourquette, 2014). Thus, while the curriculum is consistent across traditional and flipped classrooms, the course structure of a flipped classroom is unique as it replaces the traditional lecture with collaborative, face-to-face activities promoting active learning. This approach gives students the opportunity to apply and consolidate the material learned outside of class in the presence of an instructor and through collaboration with peers. With an understanding of the benefits associated with the flipped classroom, instructors and teaching assistants (TAs) will be better equipped to provide a meaningful education to students enrolled in university.
Despite the popularity of the flipped classroom as a Google search term (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015), there is surprisingly little empirical evidence directly supporting the effectiveness of this model. In fact, the majority of evidence supporting the flipped classroom is pulled from research on the effectiveness of lecturing and the implementation of active learning. With evidence suggesting that the traditional lecture may not be the best approach to teach skills effectively or to encourage personal development among students (Bligh, 2000), researchers began to investigate the value of lecturing outside of the classroom. This style of lecturing often takes the form of pre-recorded videos or screencasts (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015). A study conducted by El Sayad and El Raouf (2013) compared the success of student learning (i.e., grades on quizzes and exams) across video-based lectures and the traditional in-class lecture over a 10-week period. Grades received in the in-class lectures and the video-based lectures were then compared (El Sayad & El Raouf, 2013). Interestingly, despite distinct lecturing styles, no differences were identified in the percentage of students that passed or failed the quizzes and exams (El Sayad & El Raouf, 2013). Ellis and Mathis (1985) found similar results, reporting comparable test performance across students who watched pre-recorded lectures and those who attended in-person lectures for an entire semester. Based on these studies, it appears that the way in which the lecture is conducted (i.e., in-person versus video) has little impact on student performance (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2016).
Researchers have also investigated the effectiveness of incorporating active learning into the classroom. Michael (2006) suggests that active learning may be more effective than passive approaches to learning (e.g., the traditional lecture). For example, while passive learning appears to impact student success negatively, active learning appears to have a positive impact (Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012). Although there are a variety of active learning methods (e.g., think-pair-share activities, discussion groups, clicker questions), research suggests that student learning is consistently enhanced when such methods are used correctly (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014). Recently, Freeman et al. (2014) conducted one of the largest meta-analyses to date, investigating the effect of active learning on undergraduate student performance. Among 225 studies, Freeman et al., (2014) identified that, on average, exam scores improved by 6% when active learning was incorporated into the classroom. Freeman et al. (2014) also reported that students enrolled in the traditional lecture-based course were almost twice as likely to fail than those enrolled in a course promoting active learning.
With evidence that grades are unaffected by the lecture style (e.g., El Sayad & El Raour, 2013) and that active learning may lead to improvements in student performance over the traditional lecture (Freeman et al., 2014; Michael, 2006), it is not surprising that the flipped classroom has received so much support. Recently, Flynn (2015) explored the effectiveness of the flipped classroom in comparison to the traditional lecture among students enrolled in undergraduate courses. The flipped classroom environment, Flynn (2015) reported, led to improved grades, reduced failure rates, and fewer dropouts than its traditional lecture counterpart. Similar results have been identified by Day and Foley (2006), who reported higher scores on homework assignments, projects, and tests for students enrolled in a flipped course compared to those enrolled in a traditional course. Furthermore, students tend to report higher satisfaction (Flynn, 2015) and greater creativity (Al-Zahrani, 2015) in the flipped classroom than in the traditional lecture.
Although flipping a classroom appears to be an effective method of teaching, it is not without limitations. To be successful, the flipped classroom relies on students’ willingness to participate in the activities and to come to class prepared (e.g., watching the pre-recorded material). The flipped classroom also requires that the instructor to have a well-organized course structure as well as to prepare materials far in advance of the actual class. The instructor must also be flexible in the event of technical difficulties or unexpected setbacks. For example, in-class activities often rely on a certain number of students attending class. In this situation, the instructor must be prepared to alter an activity quickly should the number of students change at the last minute. The instructor must also consider the class size (i.e., 30 vs. 500 students) when creating activities. It is possible that the flipped classroom approach may be better suited for smaller classes then larger classes. While it is important to recognize the potential limitations of the flipped classroom, they do not appear to diminish the benefits of this method of teaching.
At Carleton University, the flipped classroom, or a variation of the flipped classroom, is already being used—and has been for a long while. For example, in the first-year Introduction to Psychology course (PSYC 1001 and 1002), students enroll in a two-hour lecture and a one-hour tutorial. During the lecture, the professor disseminates the information to the students. Following the lecture, students attend a tutorial session where the material discussed during the lecture is applied and consolidated through the completion of an activity (e.g., individually, with a group, as a class). In the tutorials, TAs have a direct role in the implementation of active learning. While this method does not fully reflect a flipped classroom approach, the opportunity to engage more actively with the material in the presence of a TA has benefits students in terms of comprehension and often helps them develop “real-world” examples that aid in information recall during exams. These sessions also give students the opportunity to discuss the material with their peers and clear up any misunderstandings from the lecture, ensuring that everyone is on the right track.
With evidence that the traditional lecture is ineffective, it is surprising that this method is still used to teach. If educators continue to rely solely on the traditional lecture, students will continue to be restricted from fully engaging in their education. In order to encourage students to become more actively involved with the material, it is important that instructors and TAs begin to recognize the benefits of the flipped classroom and to incorporate this approach into their teaching. Not only will this method benefit students’ academic success and course satisfaction, but it is also likely to inspire their curiosity and creativity in the subject.
References
Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2016). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale, and a call for research. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.934336
Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420-31. doi: 10.1109/TE.2006.879792.
DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2016). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10648-01509356-9
Ellis, L., & Mathis, D. (1985). College student learning from televised versus conventional classroom lectures: A controlled experiment. Higher Education, 14, 165-73.
El Sayad, R., & El Raouf, S. (2013). Video-based lectures: An emerging paradigm for teaching human anatomy and physiology to student nurses. Alexandria Journal of Medicine, 49, 215-22.
Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Bus Educ Accredit, 6(1), 63-70.
Flynn, A. B. (2015). Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: Organic and spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, English and French. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 198-211.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., … Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 111(23), 8410-15.
Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213-16.
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Edu, 30(4), 159-67.
Porcaro, P. A., Jackson, D. E., McLaughlin, P. M., & O’Malley, C. J. (2016). Curriculum design of a flipped classroom to enhance haematology learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s10956-015-9599-8
Richard, M., Abraham, C, & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353-87.
Smith, J. S. (2014). Active learning strategies in the physician assistant classroom: The critical piece to a successful flipped classroom. Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 25(2), 46-49.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12, 82-83.