Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 67, Issue 6, pp 1573–1591 | Cite as

The impact of student engagement on learning outcomes in a cyber-flipped course

  • Li-Chun Lin
  • I-Chun Hung
  • Kinshuk
  • Nian-Shing ChenEmail author
Development Article

Abstract

A cyber-flipped course was conducted with the flipped classroom pedagogy by using a wholly online approach for all learning activities in asynchronous and synchronous class sessions. Literature suggests that traditional flipped courses can effectively enhance students’ learning outcomes in comparison to non-flipped courses. However, conducting all asynchronous and synchronous learning activities using a wholly online approach has not been reported. This paper aimed to investigate how student engagement in four different types of learning activities affects their learning outcomes in a cyber-flipped course. Results show that the learning activities with the flipped classroom pedagogy can be successfully implemented and conducted in a wholly online course along with time and space flexibility for learners. This study also found that students who watched more pre-recorded video lectures tended to participate in the synchronous learning activities more actively and obtained a higher semester grade; higher completion of asynchronous learning activities had benefited students’ understanding of the learning concepts. Furthermore, students who had a high level of readiness by attending synchronous class sessions on time and keeping their webcams activated had more frequent and proactive interactions with their peers and instructor.

Keywords

Cyber-flipped course Synchronous learning activities Engagements Online interaction Learning outcomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C., for financially supporting this research under Grant Nos. MOST-107-2511-H-224-007-MY3, MOST-106-2511-S-224-005-MY3, and MOST 106-2917-I-564-065.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2015). From passive to active: The impact of the flipped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students’ creative thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology,46(6), 1133–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education,78, 227–236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  4. Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C.-N., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). The impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics concept learning in high school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,19(3), 134–142.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. Proceedings of ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA (vol. 30, pp. 1–18).Google Scholar
  6. Brecht, H. (2012). Learning from online video lectures. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice,11, 227–250.Google Scholar
  7. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE: Life Sciences Education,6(1), 9–20.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education,54(4), 1222–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education,79, 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christopherson, K. M. (2011). Hardware or wetware: What are the possible interactions of pedagogy and technology in the classroom? Teaching of Psychology,38(4), 288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development,61(4), 563–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human–computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education,49(4), 420–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education,19(2), 22–39.Google Scholar
  14. Finkelstein, J. E. (2009). Learning in real time: Synchronous teaching and learning online. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2013). Using lean in the flipped classroom for at risk students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,16(1), 356.Google Scholar
  16. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research,74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garcia Sanchez, C., Castro, F., Gomez, J. I., Tenllado, C., Chaver, D., & Lopez-Orozco, J. A. (2012). OpenIRS-UCM: An open-source multi-platform for interactive response systems. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 232–237). ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Geist, M. J., Larimore, D., Rawiszer, H., & Al Sager, A. W. (2015). Flipped versus traditional instruction and achievement in a baccalaureate nursing pharmacology course. Nursing Education Perspectives,36(2), 114–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,47(1), 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 41–50). ACM.Google Scholar
  21. He, W., Holton, A., Farkas, G., & Warschauer, M. (2016). The effects of flipped instruction on out-of-class study time, exam performance, and student perceptions. Learning and Instruction,45, 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). Computing experience and good practices in undergraduate education: Does the degree of campus wiredness matter? Education Policy Analysis Archives.  https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v9n49.2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education,43(5), 555–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hung, M.-L., Chou, C., Chen, C.-H., & Own, Z.-Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education,55(3), 1080–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hwang, G.-J., & Chiu-Lin, L. (2017). Facilitating and bridging out-of-class and in-class learning: An interactive E-book-based flipped learning approach for math courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,20(1), 184.Google Scholar
  26. Jamaludin, R., & Osman, S. Z. M. (2014). The use of a flipped classroom to enhance engagement and promote active learning. Journal of Education and Practice,5(2), 124–131.Google Scholar
  27. Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education,14(1), ar5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karakostas, A., Adam, D., Kioutsiouki, D., & Demetriadis, S. (2014). A pilot study of QuizIt: The new android classroom response system. In: Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL2014) (pp. 147–151). IEEE.Google Scholar
  29. Kay, R., & Kletskin, I. (2012). Evaluating the use of problem-based video podcasts to teach mathematics in higher education. Computers & Education,59(2), 619–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education,22, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laird, T. F. N., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education,46(2), 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lu, H., Jia, L., Gong, S.-H., & Clark, B. (2007). The relationship of Kolb learning styles, online learning behaviors and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,10(4), 184–196.Google Scholar
  33. McBride, C. (2015). Flipping advice for beginners: What I learned flipping undergraduate mathematics and statistics classes. Primus,25(8), 694–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLaughlin, J. E., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., Davidson, C. A., Glatt, D. M., Roth, M. T., et al. (2013). Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,77(9), 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., et al. (2014). The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic Medicine,89(2), 236–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moraros, J., Islam, A., Yu, S., Banow, R., & Schindelka, B. (2015). Flipping for success: Evaluating the effectiveness of a novel teaching approach in a graduate level setting. BMC Medical Education,15(1), 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S.-S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education,8(3), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nachmias, R. (2002). A research framework for the study of a campus-wide Web-based academic instruction project. The Internet and Higher Education,5(3), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education,25, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Punie, Y. (2007). Learning Spaces: An ICT-enabled model of future learning in the Knowledge-based Society. European Journal of Education,42(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rafaeli, S., & Ravid, G. (1997). Online, web based learning environment for an information systems course: Access logs, linearity and performance. In Proceedings of ISECON (vol. 97, pp. 92–99). Citeseer.Google Scholar
  42. Rambe, P., & Bere, A. (2013). Using mobile instant messaging to leverage learner participation and transform pedagogy at a South African University of Technology. British Journal of Educational Technology,44(4), 544–561.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2013). The future of learning 2025: Developing a vision for change. Future Learning,2(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 167–187). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Richardson, J. T., Long, G. L., & Foster, S. B. (2004). Academic engagement in students with a hearing loss in distance education. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,9(1), 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. American Journal of Distance Education,20(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roach, T. (2014). Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New methods to increase interaction and active learning in economics. International Review of Economics Education,17, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business,84(2), 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College Teaching,59(2), 56–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Song, Y., Jong, M. S., Chang, M., & Chen, W. (2017). Guest editorial: “How” to design, implement and evaluate the flipped classroom? A synthesis. Educational Technology & Society,20(1), 180–183.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Sun, J. C.-Y., & Wu, Y.-T. (2016). Analysis of learning achievement and teacher–student interactions in flipped and conventional classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,17(1), 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tells us. Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and Direction,4(1), 13–47.Google Scholar
  54. Trevino, L. K. (1990). Understanding managers’ media choices: A symbolic interactionist organizations and communication technology (p. 71). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  55. Tseng, Y.-H., Lee, L.-H., Chien, Y.-T., Chang, C.-Y., & Li, T.-Y. (2018). Multilingual short text responses clustering for mobile educational activities: A preliminary exploration. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Natural Language Processing Techniques for Educational Applications (pp. 157–164).Google Scholar
  56. Wang, F. H. (2017). An exploration of online behaviour engagement and achievement in flipped classroom supported by learning management system. Computers & Education,114, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wei, C.-W., Chen, N.-S., & Kinshuk, (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development,60(3), 529–545.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9234-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wu, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Milrad, M., Ke, H. R., & Huang, Y. M. (2012). An innovative concept map approach for improving students’ learning performance with an instant feedback mechanism. British Journal of Educational Technology,43(2), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yilmaz, M., Ren, J., Custer, S., & Coleman, J. (2010). Hands-on summer camp to attract K–12 students to engineering fields. IEEE Transactions on Education,53(1), 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zaiane, O. R., & Luo, J. (2001). Towards evaluating learners’ behaviour in a web-based distance learning environment. In Proceedings of Advanced Learning Technologies, 2001. Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 357–360). IEEE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ManagementNational Sun Yat-sen UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of Industrial & Systems EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.College of Information, Discovery Park, Suite E290DUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Applied Foreign LanguagesNational Yunlin University of Science and TechnologyYunlinTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations