Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course

  • Randall S. DaviesEmail author
  • Douglas L. Dean
  • Nick Ball
Development Article


The purpose of this research was to explore how technology can be used to teach technological skills and to determine what benefit flipping the classroom might have for students taking an introductory-level college course on spreadsheets in terms of student achievement and satisfaction with the class. A pretest posttest quasi-experimental mixed methods design was utilized to determine any differences in student achievement that might be associated with the instructional approach being used. In addition, the scalability of each approach was evaluated along with students’ perceptions of these approaches to determine the affect each intervention might have on a student’s motivation to learn. The simulation-based instruction tested in this study was found to be an extremely scalable solution but less effective than the regular classroom and flipped classroom approaches in terms of student learning. While students did demonstrate learning gains, the process focus of the simulation’s instruction and assessments frustrated students and decreased their motivation to learn. Students’ attitudes towards the topic, their willingness to refer the course to others, and the likelihood that they would take another course like this were considerably lower than those of students in the flipped or regular classroom situations. The results of this study support the conclusion that a technology enhanced flipped classroom was both effective and scalable; it better facilitated learning than the simulation-based training and students found this approach to be more motivating in that it allowed for greater differentiation of instruction.


Technology integration Technology simulations Computer-aided instruction Differentiated instruction 


  1. Alessi, S. M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40–47.Google Scholar
  2. Alessi, S. M. (2000). Simulation design for training and assessment. In H. F. O’Neil & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 199–224). Mahwah: Lawerance Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, B. (2011). Flipping the classroom: Homework in class, lessons at home. Learning First. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from
  4. Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2012). The flipped class: Myths versus reality. The Daily Riff. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from
  5. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Before you flip, consider this. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 25.Google Scholar
  6. Berrett, D. (2011). How ‘Flipping’ the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The chronicle of higher education. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from
  7. Cizek, G. J. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics, and challenges. In G. J. Cizek & H. L. Andrade (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3–17). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cornelius, S., & Gordon, C. (2008). Providing a flexible, learner-centered programme: Challenges for educators. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, R. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45–52. doi: 10.1007/s11528-011-0527-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies, R., & West, R. (2013). Technology integration in school settings. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Dziuban, C. D. (2004). Blended learning. In C. O. Boulder (Ed.), Educause center for applied research. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from
  12. Friedman, H., & Friedman, L. (2001). Crises in education: Online learning as a solution. Creative Education, 2(3), 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fulton, K. P. (2012). 10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 20–24.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Gatto, D. (1993). The use of interactive computer simulations in training. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 144–156.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Hays, R. T., & Singer, M. J. (1989). Simulation fidelity in training system design: Bridging the gap between reality and training. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes, H. (2012). Introduction to flipping the college classroom. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings from world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2012 (pp. 2434–2438). Chesapeake: AACE.Google Scholar
  19. Jacobs, J. W., & Dempsey, J. V. (1993). Simulation and gaming: Fidelity, feedback, and motivation. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 197–227). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Keefe, J. (2007). What is personalization? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 217–223.Google Scholar
  21. Keefe, J., & Jenkins, J. (2002). Personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 440–448.Google Scholar
  22. Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse: Education reimagined. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  23. Kleiman, G. M. (2000). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools. In the harvard education letter report. The digital classroom: How technology is changing the way we teach and learn. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from
  24. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.Google Scholar
  26. Marzano, R. J. (2009). Formative versus summative assessments as measures of student learning. In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 261–271). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before lecture: a strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nolen, A. L., & Putten, J. V. (2007). Action research in education: Addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 401–407. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07309629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Novak, G. M. (2011). Just-in-time teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 63–73. doi: 10.1002/tl.469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pardo, A., Pérez-Sanagustin, M., Hugo, A., Parada, H. A., & Leony, D. (2012). Flip with care. Proceedings of SoLAR southern flare conference. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from
  31. Patterson, G. A. (2012). An interview with Michael Horn: Blending education for high-octane motivation. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 14–18.Google Scholar
  32. Price, J. (2012). Textbook bling: An evaluation of textbook quality and usability in open educational resources versus traditionally published textbooks (Unpublished master’s project). Provo: Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
  33. Quinn, C. N. (2005). Engaging learning: Designing e-learning simulation games. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
  35. Strayer, J. F. (2007). The effect of the classroom flip on the learning environment: A comparison of learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flip classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  36. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Talbert, R. (2012). Inverted classroom. Colleagues, 9(1), Article 7.Google Scholar
  38. Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Department of Defense. (1997). DoD modeling and simulation (M&S) glossary, DoD 5000.59-M. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from
  40. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National education technology plan 2010. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  41. Verkroost, M., Meijerink, L., Lintsen, H., & Veen, W. (2008). Finding a balance in dimensions of blended learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 499–522.Google Scholar
  42. Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for education technology. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randall S. Davies
    • 1
    Email author
  • Douglas L. Dean
    • 2
  • Nick Ball
    • 2
  1. 1.Instructional Psychology and Technology, McKay School of EducationBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Information Systems, Marriott School of ManagementBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations