Abstract
The flipped classroom is an increasingly popular active learning approach in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics courses. This study investigated the implementation and student outcomes of early adopters of the flipped classroom approach. We used the Diffusion of Innovations framework to compare the implementation and outcomes in traditional and flipped courses of five early adopters of the flipped classroom approach. Data included classroom observations, student grades, and student evaluations of teaching. Results indicated that students in flipped courses spent less class time listening to lectures and more time engaged in active learning during class than did students in traditional courses. However, these changes in instruction did not result in significantly improved student performance or student evaluations of teaching. These results demonstrate the positive outcomes frequently observed in previous studies may take more time to replicate in early adopters’ courses. This work reinforces the need to continue studying the implementation and outcomes of educational innovations throughout their adoption.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Adams, A. E. M., Garcia, J., & Traustadóttir, T. et al. (2016). A quasi experiment to determine the effectiveness of a “partially flipped” versus “fully flipped” undergraduate class in genetics and evolution. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-07-0157
Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar7. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. et al. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change: A call to action, final report. AAAS.
Barral, A. M., Ardi-Pastores, V. C., & Simmons, R. E. et al. (2018). Student learning in an accelerated introductory biology course is significantly enhanced by a flipped-learning environment. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3), ar38. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0129
Bates, J. E., Almekdash, H., & Gilchrest-Dunnam, M. J. et al. (2017). The flipped classroom: A brief, brief history. In The flipped college classroom 3–10. Springer.
Beal, G. M., & Rogers, E. M. (1960). The adoption of two farm practices in a central Iowa community. Special Report 26, Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, 30(9), 1–18.
Casasola, T., Nguyen, T., Warschauer, M., & Schenke, K. et al. (2017). Can flipping the classroom work? Evidence from undergraduate chemistry. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(3), 421–435.
Christiansen, M. A. (2014). Inverted teaching: Applying a new pedagogy to a university organic chemistry class. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1845–1850.
Deri, M. A., Mills, P., & McGregor, D. et al. (2018). Structure and evaluation of a flipped general chemistry course as a model for small and large gateway science courses at an urban public institution. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(3), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst18_047_03_68
Emrick, J. A., Peterson, S. M., & Agarwala-Rogers, R. et al. (1977). Evaluation of the national diffusion network. Vol 1: Findings and recommendations. Stanford Research Institute.
Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57(6), 14–27.
Fautch, J. M. (2015). The flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry in small classes: Is it effective? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00230J
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Garrison, H. (2013). Underrepresentation by race–ethnicity across stages of US science and engineering education. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-12-0207
Gross, D., Pietri, E. S., Anderson, G., Moyano-Camihort, K., & Graham, M. J. et al. (2015). Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar36. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-02-0040
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Suny Press.
He, W., Holton, A., Farkas, G., & Warschauer, M. et al. (2016). The effects of flipped instruction on out-of-class study time, exam performance, and student perceptions. Learning and Instruction, 45, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.07.001
Henderson, C. (2005). The challenges of instructional change under the best of circumstances: A case study of one college physics instructor. American Journal of Physics, 73, 778–786.
Heyborne, W. H., & Perrett, J. J. (2016). To flip or not to flip? Analysis of a flipped classroom pedagogy in a general biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(4), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst16_045_04_31
Hung, W., & Amida, A. (2020). Problem-based learning in college science. In J. J. Mintzes & E. M. Walter (Eds.), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice (pp. 325–339). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_21
Idsardi, R. (2020). Evidence-based practices for the active learning classroom. In J. J. Mintzes & E. M. Walter (Eds.), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice (pp. 13–25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_2
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. D. M. et al. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. et al. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.
Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. et al. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.822582
Mangiafico, S. (2020). rcompanion: Functions to support extension education program evaluation, version 2.3. 25. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanion
Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. et al. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2013.2249066
Milman, N. B. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used? Distance Learning, 9(3), 85.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Revelle, W. (2019). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research, version 1.9.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press.
Ryan, M. D., & Reid, S. A. (2016). Impact of the flipped classroom on student performance and retention: A parallel controlled study in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 13–23.
Sahin, A., Cavlazoglu, B., & Zeytuncu, Y. E. et al. (2015). Flipping a college calculus course: A Case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 142–152.
Schroeder, L. B., McGivney-Burelle, J., & Xue, F. et al. (2015). To flip or not to flip? An exploratory study comparing student performance in Calculus I. Primus, 25(9–10), 876–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1050617
Shattuck, J. C. (2016). A parallel controlled study of the effectiveness of a partially flipped organic chemistry course on student performance, perceptions, and course completion. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(12), 1984–1992. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00393
Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. et al. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627.
Smith, M. K., Vinson, E. L., Smith, J. A., Lewin, J. D., & Stetzer, M. R. et al. (2014). A campus-wide study of STEM courses: New perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0108
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., Eagan, M. K., Esson, J. M., Knight, J. K., & Laski, F. A. et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.
Tucker, B. (2012). The Flipped Classroom. Education next, 12(1), 82–83.
van Vliet, E. A., Winnips, J. C., & Brouwer, N. et al. (2015). Flipped-class pedagogy enhances student metacognition and collaborative-learning strategies in higher education but effect does not persist. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(3), ar26. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0141
Weaver, G. C., & Sturtevant, H. G. (2015). Design, implementation, and evaluation of a flipped format general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(9), 1437–1448. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00316
Wheeler, L., & Morkowchuk, L. (2020). Project-based guided inquiry (PBGI) in Introductory chemistry. In J. J. Mintzes & E. M. Walter (Eds.), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice (pp. 341–357). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_22
Zeileis, A., Wiel, M. A., Hornik, K., & Hothorn, T. et al. (2008). Implementing a class of permutation tests: The coin package. Journal of Statistical Software, 28(8), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i08
Acknowledgements
The findings, conclusions, and opinions herein represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of personnel affiliated with EWU. We appreciate the participation of the STEM faculty members in this study who allowed researchers to conduct classroom observations, completed surveys, and provided course gradebooks and student evaluations of teaching.
Funding
This work was made possible by two internal Eastern Washington University grants: a “Start Something Big” grant (Matos, 2018) and a “Faculty Grant for Research & Creative Works” (Idsardi, 2019).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Statement on Informed Consent and IRB Approval
The research design was reviewed and approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained from participants prior to data collection.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Idsardi, R., Friedly, I., Mancinelli, J. et al. Outcomes of Early Adopters Implementing the Flipped Classroom Approach in Undergraduate STEM Courses. J Sci Educ Technol 32, 655–670 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10066-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10066-9