Learning Environments Research

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 171–193 | Cite as

How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation

Original Paper

Abstract

Recent technological developments have given rise to blended learning classrooms. An inverted (or flipped) classroom is a specific type of blended learning design that uses technology to move lectures outside the classroom and uses learning activities to move practice with concepts inside the classroom. This article compares the learning environments of an inverted introductory statistics class with a traditional introductory statistics class at the same university. This mixed-methods research study used the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI), field notes, interviews and focus groups to investigate the learning environments of these two classrooms. Students in the inverted classroom were less satisfied with how the classroom structure oriented them to the learning tasks in the course, but they became more open to cooperative learning and innovative teaching methods. These findings are discussed in terms of how they contribute to the stability and connectedness of classroom learning communities.

Keywords

Blended learning Classroom flip Educational technology Intelligent tutoring systems Inverted classrooms Mathematics education Statistics education 

References

  1. Albert, D., & Schrepp, M. (1999). Structure and design of an intelligent tutorial system based on skill assignments. In J. Lukas (Ed.), Knowledge spaces: Theories, empirical research and applications (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, J. W. (2000, April). Theclassroom flip: Using web course management tools to become a guide by the side. Paper presented at the 11th international conference on college teaching and learning, Jacksonville, FL.Google Scholar
  3. Bluic, A.-M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buerck, J. P., Malmstrom, T., & Peppers, E. (2003). Learning environments and learning styles: Non-traditional student enrollment and success in an internet-based versus a lecture-based computer science course. Learning Environments Research, 6, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandra, V., & Fisher, D. L. (2009). Students’ perceptions of a blended web-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 12, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, B., de Boer, W., & van der Veen, J. (2001). Building on learner contributions: A web-supported pedagogic strategy. Educational Media International, 38(4), 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doignon, J. P., & Falmagne, J. C. (1999). Knowledge spaces. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 54, 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2001). An invasion in the classroom: Influence of an ill-structured innovation on instructional and epistemological beliefs. Learning Environments Research, 4, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falmagne, J. C. (1993). Stochastic learning paths in a knowledge structure. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37, 489–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falmagne, J. C., Cosyn, E., Doignon, J. P., & Thiery, N. (2006). The assessment of knowledge, in theory and in practice. In R. Missaoui & J. Schmid (Eds.), Formal concept analysis (pp. 61–79). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser, B. J., Treagust, D. F., & Dennis, N. C. (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment at universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 11(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frederickson, N., Reed, P., & Clifford, V. (2005). Evaluating web-supported learning versus lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Higher Education, 50, 645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008). Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. Proceedings of the 30th international conference on software engineering, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
  17. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Lukas, J., & Albert, D. (1999). Knowledge structures: What they are and how they can be used in cognitive psychology, test theory, and the design of learning environments. In J. Lukas (Ed.), Knowledge spaces: Theories, empirical research, and applications (pp. 3–12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Moos, R. H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  23. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Moss, R. H. (2003). Social contexts: Transcending their power and their fragility. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1/2), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nijhuis, J. F., Segers, M. S., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environments Research, 8, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Pelto, P. J., & Pelto, G. H. (1978). Anthropological research: The structure of inquiry (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51, 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Strayer, J. F. (2009). Inverting the classroom: A study of the learning environment when an intelligent tutoring system is used to help students learn. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Weinstein, M. (2004). Randomized design and the myth of certain knowledge: Guinea pig narratives and cultural critique. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 246–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesMiddle Tennessee State UniversityMurfreesboroUSA

Personalised recommendations