Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 347–358 | Cite as

Investigating Flipped Learning: Student Self-Regulated Learning, Perceptions, and Achievement in an Introductory Biology Course

  • Sarah Rae SlettenEmail author


In flipped classrooms, lectures, which are normally delivered in-class, are assigned as homework in the form of videos, and assignments that were traditionally assigned as homework, are done as learning activities in class. It was hypothesized that the effectiveness of the flipped model hinges on a student’s desire and ability to adopt a self-directed learning style. The purpose of this study was twofold; it aimed at examining the relationship between two variables—students’ perceptions of the flipped model and their self-regulated learning (SRL) behaviors—and the impact that these variables have on achievement in a flipped class. For the study, 76 participants from a flipped introductory biology course were asked about their SRL strategy use and perceptions of the flipped model. SRL strategy use was measured using a modified version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Wolters et al. 2005), while the flipped perceptions survey was newly derived. Student letter grades were collected as a measure of achievement. Through regression analysis, it was found that students’ perceptions of the flipped model positively predict students’ use of several types of SRL strategies. However, the data did not indicate a relationship between student perceptions and achievement, neither directly nor indirectly, through SRL strategy use. Results suggest that flipped classrooms demonstrate their successes in the active learning sessions through constructivist teaching methods. Video lectures hold an important role in flipped classes, however, students may need to practice SRL skills to become more self-directed and effectively learn from them.


Flipped learning Flipped classroom Self-regulated learning Active learning Self-directed learning 



The author would like to thank Christopher Felege from the University of North Dakota and Lindsey Leker from North Dakota State University for their assistance with data collection.

Supplementary material

10956_2016_9683_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. Auerback AJ, Schussler EE (2016) Instructor use of group active learning in an introductory biology sequence. J Coll Sci Teach 45(2):67–74Google Scholar
  2. Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ (2008) Active learning: effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptibility. J Appl Psychol 93(2):296–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann J, Sams A (2012) Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. ASCD, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonwell CC, Eison JA (1991) Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 1. The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Borich GD (2014) Effective teaching methods: researched-based practice, 8th edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyer SL, Edmondson DR, Artis AB, Fleming D (2014) Self-directed learning: a tool for lifelong learning. J Mark Educ 36(1):20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brookfield SD (1986) Understanding and facilitating adult learning. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks JG, Brooks MG (1993) In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms. ASCD, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  9. Carini RM, Kuh GD, Klein SP (2006) Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Res High Educ 47(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enfield J (2013) Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends 57(6):14–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Francis CA (2014) Student rates of outside preparation before class discussion of new course topics: a case study of a flipped classroom. In: Keengwe J, Onchwari G, Oigara JN (eds) Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model. IGI Global, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  12. Freeman S, O’Connor E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D et al (2007) Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sci Educ 6:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haak D, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S (2011) Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332:1213–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamdan N, McKnight P, McKnight K, Arfstrom KM (2013) A review of flipped learning. from Flipped Learning Network
  15. Herreid CF, Schiller NA (2013) Case studies and the flipped classroom. J Coll Sci Teach 42(5):62Google Scholar
  16. Holbrook J, Dupont C (2011) Making the decision to provide enhanced podcasts to post-secondary science students. J Sci Educ Technol 20:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hrynchak P, Batty H (2012) The educational theory basis of team-based learning. Med Teach 34:796–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hussey HD, Fleck BKB, Richmond AS (2014) Promoting active learning through a flipped course design. In: Keengwe J, Onchwari G, Oigara JN (eds) Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model. IGI Global, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson L, Adams Becker S, Estrada V, Freeman A (2014) NMC horizon report: 2014 higher education edition. Retrieved from Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  20. Karabenick SA (2003) Seeking help in large college classes: a person-centered approach. Contemp Educ Psychol 28:37–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karpov Y (2003) Vygotsky’s doctrine of scientific concepts: its role for contemporary education. In: Kozulin A, Gindis B, Ageyev VS, Miller SM (eds) Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaufman DM (2003) Abc of learning and teaching in medicine: applying educational theory in practice. Br Med J 326(7382):213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  24. Kozulin A (2003) Psychological tools and mediated learning. In: Kozulin A, Gindis B, Ageyev VS, Miller SM (eds) Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee SW, Tsai C (2011) Students’ perceptions of collaboration, self- regulated learning, and information seeking in the context of internet-based learning and traditional learning. Comput Hum Behav 27(2):905–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liaw S, Huang H (2013) Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Comput Educ 60(1):14–24Google Scholar
  27. Liaw S, Chen G, Huang H (2008) Users’ attitudes toward web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Comput Educ 50:950–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lord TR (1997) A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innov High Educ 21(3):197–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malouff J (2008) Bias in grading. Coll Teach 56(3):191–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marchionda H, Bateiha S, Autin M (2014) The effect of instruction on developing autonomous learners in a college statistics class. In: Karp K, Roth A (eds) Using research to improve instruction. NCTM, RestonGoogle Scholar
  31. Mason GS, Shuman TR, Cook KE (2013) Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Trans Educ 56(4):430–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLaughlin JE, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Davidson CA, Glatt DM, Roth MT et al (2013) Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. Am J Pharm Educ 77(9):196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mega C, Ronconi L, & DeBeni R (2014) What makes a good student? How emotions, self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. J Educ Psychol 106(1):121–131Google Scholar
  34. Merriam SB, Caffarella RS, Baumgartner LM (2007) Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  35. Mervis J (2009) Universities begin to rethink first-year biology courses. Science 325:527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mervis J (2010) Better intro courses seen as key to reducing attrition of STEM majors. Science 330:306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyer KA (2014) Student engagement in online learning: what works and why. ASHE High Educ Rep 40(6):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Millard E (2012) 5 reasons flipped classrooms work. Retrieved from
  39. Milman NB (2012) The flipped classroom strategy: what is it and how can it best be used? Distance Learning 9(3):85Google Scholar
  40. Newman DL, Connor KA, Deyoe MM, Lamendola JM (2014) Flipping STEM learning: impact on students’ process of learning and faculty instructional activities. In: Keengwe J, Onchwari G, Oigara JN (eds) Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model. IGI Glo0062al, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  41. Park EL, Choi BK (2014) Transformation of classroom spaces: traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. High Educ 68:749–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pierce R, Fox J (2012) Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a "flipped classroom": model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ 76(10):196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pigg S, Morison B (2016) Student practices and perceptions in flipped courses. In: Waldrop JB, Bowdon MA (eds) Best practices for flipping the college classroom. Routledge, New York, pp 131–145Google Scholar
  44. Pintrich P (2004) A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educ Psychol Rev 16(4):385–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raths D (2014) How to make the most of the flipped classroom. Campus Technology 27:17–22.Google Scholar
  46. Ray BB, Powell A (2014) Preparing to teach with flipped classroom in teacher preparation programs. In: Keengwe J, Onchwari G, Oigara JN (eds) Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model. IGI Global, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  47. Roach T (2014) Student perceptions toward flipped learning: new methods to increase interaction and active learning in economics. Int Rev Econ EducGoogle Scholar
  48. Slater TS, Prather EE, Zeilik M (2006) Strategies for interactive engagement in large lecure science survey classes. In: Mintzes JJ, Leonard WH (eds) Handbook of college science teaching. NSTA Press, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith JD (2013) Student attitudes toward flipping the general chemistry classroom. Chem Educ Res Pract 14(4):607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sonic Foundry, & Center for Digital Education (2013) “Flipped Classroom” model shows proven progress in addressing broken educational experience in the U.S. Retrieved from website:
  51. Stockdale SL, Williams RL (2004) Cooperative learning groups at the college level: differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers. J Behav Educ 13(1):37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Straumsheim C (2013) Despite new studies, flipping the classroom still enjoys widespread support. Retrieved from
  53. Strayer JF, Hanson BR (2014) Flipped classrooms and task engagement: beyond portable lectures. In: Karp K, Roth McDuffie A (eds) Using research to improve instruction. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, RestonGoogle Scholar
  54. Svinicki MD (2004) Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  55. Talbert R (2016) Flipped calculus: a gateway to lifelong learning in mathematics. In: Waldrop JB, Bowdon MA (eds) Best practices for flipping the college classroom. Routledge, New York, pp 29–43Google Scholar
  56. Trilling B, & Fadel C (2009) 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  57. Warner RM (2013) Applied statistics: from bivariate through multivariate techniques. Sage Publications, Inc., Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  58. Watson SL, Reigeluth CM (2008) The learner-centered paradigm of education. Educ Technol 42–48Google Scholar
  59. Wilson SG (2013) The flipped class: a method to address the challenges of an undergraduate statistics course. Teach Psychol 40(3):193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winne PH (1995) Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol 30(4):173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolters CA (2003) Regulation of motivation: evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol 38(4):189–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wolters CA, Pintrich PR, Karabenick SA (2005) Assessing academic self-regulated learning. In: Moore KA, Lippman LH (eds) What do children need to flourish: conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. Springer Science Business Media, Berlin, New York, NY, pp 251–270 Google Scholar
  63. Wood BS (2013) Lecture-free college science teaching: a learning partnership. In: Yager RE (ed) Exemplary college science teaching. NSTA Press, Arlington, pp 19–31Google Scholar
  64. Zimmerman BJ (2008) Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. Am Educ Res J 45(1):166–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zimmerman BJ, Kitsantas A (2007) The hidden dimension of personal competence: self-regulated learning and practice. In: Elliot AJ, Dweck CS (eds) Handbook of competence and motivation. Guilford, New York, pp 598–608Google Scholar
  66. Zuckerman G (2003) The learning activity in the first years of schooling: the developmental path toward reflection. In: Kozulin A, Gindis B, Ageyev VS, Miller SM (eds) Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mayville State UniversityMayvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations