Designing supports for promoting self-regulated learning in the flipped classroom

Abstract

The flipped classroom model has gained prominence as advances in technology afford increasing opportunities for ubiquitous access to a variety of online resources. Despite the benefit of the flipped classroom model, flipped classrooms are not equally advantageous to all students due to its self-regulated nature. To address the issues in flipped learning, we explored principles for supporting self-regulated learning in flipped learning by synthesizing suggestions provided in previous research. We also conducted an empirical study to validate the identified principles by implementing a self-regulated learning support that combined a learner dashboard with a reflection interface in a real flipped classroom setting. While the dashboard interface utilized students’ learning traces to support students’ self-monitoring and evaluation, the reflection interface facilitated their follow-up reflection, which contributed to the cyclical process of self-regulated learning. The results indicated that the experimental group that used the support for self-regulated learning exhibited higher levels of self-regulated learning skills, behavioral engagement in pre-class sessions, cognitive engagement in in-class sessions, emotional engagement in both pre- and in-class session, learning performance than the control group. Implications for future research and directions for design and implementation of self-regulated learning supports are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Abrami, P. C., & Aslan, O. (2007). The student learning strategies questionnaire (SLSQ). Unpublished Instrument. http://doe.concordia.ca/cslp/cslp_cms/?q!node/49.

  2. Abrami, P. C., Venkatesh, V., Meyer, E. J., & Wade, C. A. (2013). Using electronic portfolios to foster literacy and self-regulated learning skills in elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1188–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (LAK) (pp. 267–270). British Columbia, Canada.

  4. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burke, A. S., & Fedorek, B. (2017). Does “flipping” promote engagement?: A comparison of a traditional, online, and flipped class. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chapman, E. (2003). Assessing Student Engagement Rates. ERIC Digest.

  9. Colthorpe, K., Ogiji, J., Ainscough, L., Zimbardi, K., & Anderson, S. (2019). Effect of metacognitive prompts on undergraduate pharmacy students’ self-regulated learning behavior. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. de Bruin, A. B. H., Kok, E. M., Lobbestael, J., & de Grip, A. (2016). The impact of an online tool for monitoring and regulating learning at university: Overconfidence, learning strategy, and personality. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9159-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Berlin: Springer. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5.

  15. Flynn, A. B. (2015). Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: Organic and spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, English and French. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00224E.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Duval, E., & Pardo, A. (2012). The student activity meter for awareness and self-reflection. In CHI’12 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 869–884). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2212860.

  18. Grann, J., & Bushway, D. (2014). Competency map: Visualizing student learning to promote student success. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 168–172).

  19. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, J. (2013). Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context. Computers and Education, 62, 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kauffman, D. F., Zhao, R., & Yang, Y.-S. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kay, R., MacDonald, T., & DiGiuseppe, M. (2019). A comparison of lecture-based, active, and flipped classroom teaching approaches in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(3), 449–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim, D., Yoon, M., Jo, I. H., & Branch, R. M. (2018). Learning analytics to support self-regulated learning in asynchronous online courses: A case study at a women’s university in South Korea. Computers & Education, 127, 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (2001). Instructional principles for self-regulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Long, T., Cummins, J., & Waugh, M. (2017). Use of the flipped classroom instructional model in higher education: Instructors’ perspectives. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(2), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Margulieux, L. E., McCracken, W. M., & Catrambone, R. (2016). A taxonomy to define courses that mix face-to-face and online learning. Educational Research Review, 19, 104–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Park, Y., & Jo, I.-H. (2015). Development of the learning analytics dashboard to support students’ learning performance. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(1), 110–133.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal–setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), 196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. Student Perceptions in the Classroom, 7, 149–183.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pistilli, M. D., & Arnold, K. E. (2010). In practice: Purdue Signals: Mining real-time academic data to enhance student success. About Campus, 15(3), 22–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rahman, A. A., Aris, B., Rosli, M. S., Mohamed, H., Abdullah, Z., & Mohd Zaid, N. (2015). Significance of preparedness in flipped classroom. Advanced Science Letters, 21(10), 3388–3390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Berlin: Springer. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1.

  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2014.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Santos, J. L., Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., and Duval, E. (2012). Goal-oriented visualizations of activity tracking: A case study with engineering students. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 143–152). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2330639.

  38. Scheuer, O., & Zinn, C. (2007). How did the e-learning session go? The Student Inspector. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 158, 487.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schmitz, B., & Perels, F. (2011). Self-monitoring of self-regulation during math homework behaviour using standardized diaries. Metacognition and Learning, 6(3), 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 

  41. Sun, J.C.-Y., & Wu, Y.-T. (2016). Analysis of learning achievement and teacher–student interactions in flipped and conventional classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1), 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82–83.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers and Education, 88, 354–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Xiang, P., McBride, R., Guan, J., & Solmon, M. (2003). Children’s motivation in elementary physical education: An expectancy-value model of achievement choice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(1), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zimmerman, B. J., and Schunk, D. H. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). Routledge. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XfOYV0lwzGgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA49&dq=enhance+attainment+value&ots=4JFfIrjM6K&sig=wvkk8d_V6xL1cqYPSTEx0RV9S58.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A5C2A04092451).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dongho Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals

Appendix 1: Means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals

  LAD (N = 23) Non-LAD (N = 22)
M SD M SD
Agea 20.27 1.78 20.76 1.22
Semesterb 2.68 2.12 3.76 2.66
Pre-test
Self-regulated learningc 4.02 0.47 3.902 0.63
Behavioral engagementd
 Pre-class sessions 5.20 1.11 5.48 1.10
 In-class sessions 5.52 1.20 5.77 1.043
Cognitive engagementd
 Pre-class sessions 5.48 1.04 5.41 1.40
 In-class sessions 5.43 1.27 5.73 1.42
Emotional engagementd
 Pre-class sessions 5.04 1.11 4.64 1.89
 In-class sessions 5.70 1.11 5.18 1.89
Post-test
Self-regulated learning 4.60 0.62 4.03 0.65
Behavioral engagement
 Pre-class sessions 6.35 1.02 5.68 1.35
 In-class sessions 6.46 0.90 6.09 1.02
Cognitive engagement
 Pre-class sessions 6.39 1.08 5.86 1.13
 In-class sessions 6.52 0.85 5.91 1.27
Emotional engagement
 Pre-class sessions 6.17 0.98 4.91 1.34
 In-class sessions 6.52 0.95 5.59 1.26
Quiz scoree 57.10 23.79 38.64 25.25
Video completion rate (%)e 62.39 30.44 42.96 24.59
  1. CI confidence interval
  2. aPossible range of age: 18–25
  3. bPossible range of semester: 0–7
  4. cPossible range of self-regulated learning: 1–5
  5. dPossible range of behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement: 1–7
  6. ePossible range of quiz score, video completion rate (%): 0–100

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoon, M., Hill, J. & Kim, D. Designing supports for promoting self-regulated learning in the flipped classroom. J Comput High Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09269-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Flipped classroom
  • Supports for self-regulated learning
  • Blended learning
  • Higher education
  • Log data