Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alessi, S. M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Alvarez, B. (2011). Flipping the classroom: Homework in class, lessons at home. Learning First. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from http://www.learningfirst.org/flipping-classroom-homework-class-lessons-home.

  • Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2012). The flipped class: Myths versus reality. The Daily Riff. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-flipped-class-conversation-689.php.

  • Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Before you flip, consider this. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrett, D. (2011). How ‘Flipping’ the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The chronicle of higher education. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from http://chronicle.com/article/How-Flipping-the-Classroom/130857/.

  • 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 

  • Cornelius, S., & Gordon, C. (2008). Providing a flexible, learner-centered programme: Challenges for educators. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dziuban, C. D. (2004). Blended learning. In C. O. Boulder (Ed.), Educause center for applied research. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf.

  • Friedman, H., & Friedman, L. (2001). Crises in education: Online learning as a solution. Creative Education, 2(3), 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, K. P. (2012). 10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatto, D. (1993). The use of interactive computer simulations in training. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hays, R. T., & Singer, M. J. (1989). Simulation fidelity in training system design: Bridging the gap between reality and training. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Keefe, J. (2007). What is personalization? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 217–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, J., & Jenkins, J. (2002). Personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 440–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse: Education reimagined. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.edletter.org/dc/kleiman.htm.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, G. M. (2011). Just-in-time teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 63–73. doi:10.1002/tl.469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232906379_Flip_with_care.

  • Patterson, G. A. (2012). An interview with Michael Horn: Blending education for high-octane motivation. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Quinn, C. N. (2005). Engaging learning: Designing e-learning simulation games. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbert, R. (2012). Inverted classroom. Colleagues, 9(1), Article 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • U.S. Department of Defense. (1997). DoD modeling and simulation (M&S) glossary, DoD 5000.59-M. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500059m.pdf.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for education technology. Retrieved 4 June 2013 from http://www.coe.uga.edu/itt/files/2010/12/educ-tech-roadmap-nsf.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randall S. Davies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davies, R.S., Dean, D.L. & Ball, N. Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Education Tech Research Dev 61, 563–580 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6

Keywords

Navigation