Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What effect does flipping the classroom have on undergraduate student perceptions and grades?

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a lack of consensus of the effects on student perceptions and performance in flipping the classroom and its possible value over the traditional face-to-face (FTF) classroom approach. This research examines the expectation that flipping an undergraduate, introductory level, information concepts and skills class would benefit student learning and evaluates the results of flipping this type of course. The study showed a significant difference in student perceptions about the course itself between web-enhanced, FTF and hybrid, flipped classrooms, but this may be dependent upon the level of technology integration rather than the approach. In addition, students who were required to work in groups on a weekly basis had more positive responses toward the flipped classroom improving their soft skills than those who did not. Finally, for written content exams it seems the flipped class approach is at least as effective as the traditional classroom in terms of grades. However, it appears teaching software skills may be better with at least some direct instruction over just the use of simulation software.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi, M., Yoo, Y., & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. The Academy of Management Journal, 6(40), 1310–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B., & Horn, R. (2012). Community colleges in the information age: gains associated with Students' use of computer technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use Technology in the Classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers & Education, 50(1), 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, D. J., & Huguenard, B. R. (2008). The impact of students' perceived computer experience on behavior and performance in an introductory information systems course. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(1), 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkley, E. (2010). Student engagement techniques: a handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, E., Wetzel, K., Chishlom, I., Zambo, R., Buss, R., Padgett, H., Williams, M., & Odom, M. (2003). Supporting technology integration in K-8 multicultural classroom through professional development. Techtrends for Leaders in Education and Training, 47(5), 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben Youssef, A., Dahmani, M., & Omrani, N. (2015). Information technologies, students' e-skills and diversity of learning process. Education and Information Technologies, 20(1), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, S. K., & Ward, C. L. (2013). Teaching with technology: using TPACK to understand teaching expertise in online higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 153–172. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrett, D. (2012). How “flipping” the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. Education Digest, 78(1), 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals, by a Committee of College and University Examiners. Handbook 1: cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Keys factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal of E-Learning, 3(1), 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burris, D., & Kane, B. (2016). Curriculum redesign for the small, Liberal arts business program: Tools for enhancing classroom and student learning objectives. Journal of the Academy Of Business Education, 171–13.

  • Carlisle MC. (2010) Using you tube to enhance student class preparation in an introductory Java course. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer science Education; Mar 10–13; Milwaukee, WI.

  • Carpenter, B., & Tait, G. (2001). The rhetoric and reality of good teaching: a case study across three faculties at the Queensland University of Technology. Higher Education, 42(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, S. (2000). Online psychology instruction is effective, but not satisfying, study finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(March), A48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C., Shu, K., Liang, C., Tseng, J., & Hsu, Y. (2014). Is blended e-learning as measured by an achievement test and self-assessment better than traditional classroom learning for vocational high school students? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2), 213–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin, S. (2009). Assessment of the impact of case studies on student learning gains in an introductory biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39, 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke III, I., Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education: university connections. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, T. M., MacArthur, E., Stansfield, M., & McLellan, E. (2007). A quasi-experimental study of three online learning courses in computing. Computers & Education, 2(49), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R., Dean, D., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(4), 563–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, J., & Foley, J. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human–computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49, 420–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: a review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, J. R. (2012). A Critical Analysis of Active Learning and an Alternative Pedagogical Framework for Introductory Information Systems Courses. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 1139–52.

  • Eason, K. D., & Damodaran, I. (1981). The needs of the commercial user. In M. J. Coombs & J. I. Atly (Eds.), Computer skills and the user Interface (pp. 115–139). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escudeiro, N. F., & Escudeiro, P. M. (2012). The multinational undergraduate teamwork project: an effective way to improve Students' soft skills. Industry and Higher Education, 26(4), 279–290.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Faculty Focus (2015) “Flipped Classroom Trends: A Survey of College Faculty.” Retrieved from http://cdn.facultyfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Flipped-Classroom-Trends_FF-Report-2015.pdf.

  • Fallon, M. A., Russo, T., Zhang, J. (2014). The influence of perceived technology use of university students on academic and social performance in college: Technology influences on academic and social performance in college. Vancouver, Canada, June 11–13, 2014. Ninth International Conference on Social Sciences.

  • Frand, J. L. (2000). The information-age mindset: changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Rev, 35, 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. The Journal of Computing and Higher Education, 21(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Aulls, M. W. (2015). Conceptions of effective teaching and perceived use of Computer Technologies in Active Learning Classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(2), 204–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gravestock, P. & Gregor-Greenleaf, E. (2008). Student course evaluations: Research, models and trends. Higher education quality Council of Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Student%20Course%20Evaluations.pdf.

  • Greener, S. (2015). Flipped or Blended? What's the difference and does it make a difference to learning in HE? Proceedings of the European Conference on E-Learning, 146–151.

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 16, 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., Artfstrom, K. (2013). The flipped learning Model: A white paper based on the literature review. Flipped Learning Network. 1–17. Retrieved from http://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/WhitePaper_FlippedLearning.pdf.

  • Hoffman, J. (2010). What we can learn from the first digital generation: implications for developing twenty-first century learning and thinking skills in the primary grades. Education 3–13, 38(1), 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., & Rieber, L.P. (1999). Teaching, instruction, and technology. In A.C. Ornstein & L.S. Behar-Horenstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (pp.252–264). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

  • Hunt, L., Eagle, L., & Kitchen, P. (2004). Balancing marketing education and information technology: matching needs or needing a better match? Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., Godoy, P. M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 14(1).

  • Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2000). Theoretical Foundations of learning Environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

  • Karaman, S., Yildirim, S., Gulsoy, T. (2010).Patterns of instructors’ perceptions in transition process to E-instructor. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/35825.

  • Kivunja, C. (2015). Innovative methodologies for twenty-first century learning, teaching and assessment: a convenience sampling investigation into the use of social Media Technologies in Higher Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulesza, J., DeHondt II, G., & Nezlek, G. (2010). More technology, less learning? Information Systems Education Journal, 9(7), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvavik, R. B., & Handberg, M. N. (2000). Transforming student services: the University of Minnesota takes a fresh look at client/institution interaction. Educause Quarterly, 23(2), 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lage, M. J., Platt, G., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31, 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandell, S., Sorge, D. H., & Russell, J. D. (2002). TIPS for technology integration. Techtrends for Leaders in Education and Training, 46(5), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. B., & Meuter, M. L. (2011). A student view of Technology in the Classroom: does it enhance the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education? Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McVey, B., & Molnar, K. (2003). Collaborative teaching using constructionism in computer information system courses. Issues in Information Systems, IV(2), 598–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, G., Cryan, J., & Teclehaimanot, B. (2007). Two peas in a pod? A comparison of face-to-face and web-based classrooms. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2(15), 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances Physiology. Education, 30, 159–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffett, J., & Mill, A. C. (2014). Evaluation of the flipped classroom approach in a veterinary professional skills course. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 5415–5425. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S70160.

  • National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, W. B. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED440625.

  • O’Dowd, D. K., & Aguilar-Roca, N. (2009). Garage demos: using physical models to illustrate dynamic aspects of microscopic biological processes. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8, 118–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 2585–2595. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002.

  • Oliver, R. (1996). Measuring users’ performance with interactive information systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1990). A Critique of Technocentrism in Thinking About the School of the Future, Epistemology and Learning Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Laboratory, E&L Memo No. 2, 1–10.

  • Pew Research Center, News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016, May 26, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016.

  • Pew Research Center, Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview (2015a). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015.

  • Pew Research Center, Technology Device Ownership. (2015b). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015.

  • Pridmore, J. L., Bradley, R. V., & Mehta, N. (2010). Methods of instruction and learning outcomes: a theoretical analysis of two approaches in an introductory information technology course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(2), 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prunuske, A., Batzli, J., Howell, E., & Miller, S. (2012). Using online lectures to make time for active learning. Genetics, 192(1), 67–72. doi:10.1534/genetics.112.141754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Schmid, R., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Abrami, P., Wade, C., & Lowerison, G. (2009). Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: a stage I meta-analysis of classroom applications. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(2), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D., & Gurbo, M. (2008). TPCK in K-6 literacy education: It’s not that elementary! In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 61–85). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straumsheim, C., Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2015). “The 2015 Inside Higher Ed Survey of Faculty Attitudes on Technology. A Study by Gallup and Inside Higher Ed” Inside Higher Ed. Washington, D.C.

  • Strauss, J., & Hill, D. J. (2007). Student use and perceptions of web-based instructional tools: laggards in traditional classrooms. Marketing Education Review, 17(3), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J. C., & Ingram, D. (2001). A comparison of traditional and web-based tutorials in marketing education: an exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(April), 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: a study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ueltschy, L. C. (2001). An exploratory study of integrating interactive technology into the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Education. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development: Policy and Program Studies Services.

  • Van Sickle, J. (2016). Discrepancies between student perception and achievement of learning outcomes in a flipped classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willey, K., & Gardener, A. (2013) Flipping your classroom without flipping out. Leuven, Belgium, Proceedings of 41st SEFI Conference.

  • Wong, L. H. (2012). A learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E19–E23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zainuddin, Z., & Attaran, M. (2015). Malaysian students’ perceptions of flipped classroom: A Case Study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–11.

  • Zainuddin, Z., & Halili, S. (2016). Flipped classroom research and trends from different fields of study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(3), 313–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Fallon, M. A., & Russo, T. J. (2014). Impact of technology devices on college Students' comfortable levels of using technology. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 120–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuber, W. J. (2016). The flipped classroom, a review of the literature. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(2), 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Digital Learning Initiative (DLI) of St. Norbert College for the time and funding necessary to carry out this research and the assistance of Information Technology Services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Norbert College, 100 Grant St., De Pere, WI, 54115, USA

    Kathleen K. Molnar

Authors
  1. Kathleen K. Molnar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen K. Molnar.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Course survey questions

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molnar, K.K. What effect does flipping the classroom have on undergraduate student perceptions and grades?. Educ Inf Technol 22, 2741–2765 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9568-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9568-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation