Instructional Gymnastics 101: What I Learned from My Year in a Flipped Classroom
Materials related to this paper may be found at: http://bit.ly/gymnastics14
Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 3- 7, 2014, Chicago, IL
As a field, education is remarkably susceptible to hype. Spend any amount of time
read-ing recent articles on pedagogy, educational blogs, or popular news stories about education and
you will encounter the current crop of buzz words. For several years, the term “flipped
class-room” has been near the top of that list. Were you to believe the things written about
it—espe-cially in the popular press—it would be easy to imagine that the flipped classroom could
single-handedly cure all our educational ills. As with many trends, the layer of hype actually serves to
hide the real value lurking underneath. In this paper I provide a background on the concept of
flipped instruction and construct a definition that I believe best captures how the technique
oper-ates. I then recount my own experience implementing flipped instruction in three sections of
in-troductory American government.
THE HISTORYOFTHE FLIPPED CLASSROOM
Understanding the history of the flipped classroom is difficult in part because the term
draws together a number of different educational techniques that have been used individually for
some time. To confuse things the same assemblage of methods is frequently called by a number
of names: reverse instruction, the inverted classroom, and time-shifted instruction to name a few.
Many even use the term “blended learning”—though I would argue that this is more of a
gener-al term that describes a variety of ways to integrate technology with traditiongener-al instruction
(Strayer 2012, 171; Bruff et al 2013).
The most popular term, by far, is the flipped classroom. Ironically, it is easier to trace the
origin of the term than it is the origin of the concept it describes. Writing for The Telegraph in
2010, popular author Daniel Pink described the teaching innovations of Colorado high school
of the term cemented the now widespread idea that flipped instruction can best be described as a
transposition of traditional practice (Pink 2010).
Despite Fisch’s prominent connection to the name, two other Colorado teachers are
wide-ly credited as the inventors of the idea (Makice 2012; Sowash 2010; November and Mull 2012).
In 2007, Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams began recording their chemistry lectures and
post-ing them online. In their own words, they began this experiment to make life easier for
them-selves by cutting down on the number of “catch up” lectures they had to give to students who
had missed class (Bergmann and Sams 2012). At the time they called their new technique
“educa-tional vodcasting” and would later refer to it as “reverse instruction”—a different term than
Pink’s, but one that still involves a transposition metaphor (Sams 2011). With Pink’s
populariza-tion of the term “flipped,” Bergmann and Sams have also adopted the word and have since
au-thored Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day.
What most accounts of the flipped classroom miss, though, is that the idea and the term
itself appear almost half a decade earlier. In 2000, Baker as well as Lage, Platt, and Treglia
pub-lished descriptions of their attempts to improve education by having students watch lecture
videos outside of class time. Baker even referred to his approach as a “classroom flip” (Baker
2000).
At some point, quibbling over the flipped classroom’s parentage is irrelevant, but it does
raise an interesting question. How could the same concept initially go unnoticed and then take
the educational world by storm five to ten years later? I suspect the answer largely comes down to
technological change. Halfway through this century’s first decade we saw the advent of social
media. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all sprung into being within a short two year window
the most widespread audience. YouTube deserves particular mention for the revolution it
facili-tated, giving Internet users a convenient way to upload and share videos. Salman Khan (founder
of the Khan Academy), as well as Bergmann, Sams, and Fisch all uploaded their videos to
YouTube (Maxwell 2012; Bergmann and Sams 2012; Pink 2010). The earliest attempts at flipping
preceded the social media revolution and thus lacked the infrastructure that would help support
and popularize it later in the decade.
DEFININGTHE FLIPPED CLASSROOM The “Word on the Street” Definition
Given its buzzword status, one way to approach defining the flipped classroom would be
to examine how it is described in popular accounts. One title by itself is an admirable summary
of the technique: “Flipping the Classroom: Homework in Class, Lessons at Home” (Álvarez
2012). Only slightly less concise is a news story, which reads “in a flipped classroom, the student
watches a video of the teacher giving the lesson at his or her convenience. The next day in class,
students work together in groups on the homework, and the teacher answers any
questions” (Budzak 2011). In both instances, the heart of the definition comes down to the
trans-position metaphor and the reversal of traditional practices. This definition is also most common
in accounts of how flipped classrooms are implemented in K-12 education.
However, this simple definition leaves much to be desired. Those closest to the flipped
classroom are quick to point out that video is not the essence of or even essential to the flipped
classroom (Bergmann and Sams 2012, chapter 4 and 8; Bennett 2011; Makice 2012). As one
au-thor notes, “[p]rofessors have flipped courses for decades. Humanities professors expect students
lectures, which compels students to study the material before class or risk buckling under a
bar-rage of their professor’s questions” (Berrett 2012).
If video and the flipped classroom are not synonymous, why is it so often portrayed that
way? My guess is that the answer is two fold. First, the last ten years have seen video production
technology truly come down to the level of the average consumer. While it was certainly possible
to shoot and edit a video on a personal computer in the 1990s, the skills and the tools to do so
would not have been widely available. The release of Apple’s iMovie in 1999, though, heralded
the dawn of the age of consumer video. The list of subsequent developments is almost too long
to summarize: development of easy-to-use software for recording computer screens (a.k.a
“screencasting”), rapid changes in the consumer videocamera market culminating in products
like the all-digital Flip camera and video-recording smartphones, the rise of Web-based video
editing and storage. Taken together, the barriers for producing videos have dropped to almost
zero. Add in the fact that new technology and crusty old teachers or professors creating videos
makes for good press and you have, I believe, a decent explanation for why video persists in so
many descriptions of the flipped classroom.
My second concern about the flipped classroom involves the idea that flipping means
do-ing homework in the classroom. I teach Political Science—usually Introduction to American
Government. The kind of assessments I give have little in common with the work assigned in the
stereotypical K-12 STEM classroom. I don’t have “problem sets.” And while I know that there
are “workbooks” available for college level government courses, I have never used one and I do
not know anyone who has. Homework in my class usually takes the form of writing assignments
com-plete their assignments in the classroom, the model would be of little value to me and would
amount to a waste of precious seat time.
Clearly there are disciplines whose assessment situation more closely mirrors that of the
K-12 classroom usually featured in flipped stories. My situation would also be different if I were
teaching a social science research method course. But the fact is, as commonly portrayed, the
def-inition of the flipped classroom simply does not fit what a significant number of faculty do in
their courses.
The “Official” Definition
The problem is not with the flipped classroom itself but with the way it is commonly
por-trayed. It should be possible, then, to offer a definition of flipped instruction that captures what
happens in K-12 and STEM classrooms as well as other disciplines. Literally as this paper was
being written, one such definition was put forward by the Flipped Learning Network (FLN)—a
non-profit organization begun by Bergmann and Sams. This new definition, designed to “counter
some of the misconceptions about this term,” reads: “Flipped Learning is a pedagogical
ap-proach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning
space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning
envi-ronment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the
subject matter” (2014).
Along with the definition of the flipped classroom, Bergmann and Sams (and the Flipped
Learning Network) have begun distinguishing between the “flipped classroom” and a broader
concept they call “flipped learning,” which will apparently be the subject of a new book coming
out in June 2014. The recent definition of the flipped classroom is accompanied by a list of four
they learn, a student-centered learning culture that promotes inquiry and knowledge
construc-tion, concept-focused intentionality in the creation of learning experiences, and a broader sense
of educational professionalism that transcends content delivery (Flipped Learning Network
2014).
A Comprehensive Definition
Having lacked something like an official definition, I have offered faculty in my flipped
classroom workshops my own definition. At its heart is the idea of four specific instructional
“in-gredients.” There are certainly a number of other instructional ingredients or techniques that get
used in a particular course. Four in particular, though, are responsible for the “flipped” pattern of
instruction when arranged in a specific way.
The first two ingredients are closely related but conceptually distinct. “First exposure”
refers to both the manner and moment when students are introduced to content for the first time.
Direct instruction, the second ingredient, is for many instructors the preferred method of first
exposure. The term refers to any technique where the instructor is engaged in a didactic,
one-to-many presentation of content to learners. While the most recognizable form of direct instruction
might be the traditional classroom lecture, it frequently takes other forms—including the use of
textbooks or primary texts.
The third ingredient in the flipped classroom is formative feedback. A full treatment of
the concept is available in many places (c.f. Taras 2008). In short, formative feedback is designed
to provide learners with information about their own mastery of course material. This
informa-tion may come from quizzes or other assignments, which would then be called formative
assess-ments. To remain formative, such assessments need to either have no course grade associated
come, however, from dialog between the instructor and learner. On the other end of the
spec-trum are summative assessments, traditional “high stakes” items designed to result in a final
grade for a course. Failure to do well on a summative assessment generally has a substantial
im-pact on a learner’s grade and usually does little to allow students to adjust or correct their
learn-ing process.
The final ingredient is active learning. Like formative assessment, active learning is a
popular and much-addressed topic in the education literature (c.f. Bonwell and Eison 1991;
Chickering and Gamson 1987; Prince 2004; Wolfe 2006; Wilson et al. 2007). For an instructional
method to be considered “active” it must take students beyond a passive listening role. Any
num-ber of techniques qualify—from discussions and think-pair-share activities to problem-based and
service learning. Even a traditional lecture can be made more active by remembering to stop
pe-riodically and ask questions of students (Wolfe 2006). The argument in favor of active learning is
that by focusing on higher-order cognitive skills (c.f. Bloom 1956; Anderson et al. 2001;
Krath-wohl 2002) and generating active and meaningful participation, students’ engagement and
learn-ing increase (Wilson et al. 2007, 131). These insights find increaslearn-ing support from the field of
neuroscience (Doyle 2008).
Flipped instruction occurs when first exposure and direct instruction take place primarily
outside the classroom and time within the classroom is reserved for active learning and formative
assessment and feedback. This definition is broad enough, I believe, to capture what happens in
the stereotypical K-12 flipped classroom as well as what might take place in a higher ed
humani-ties course. While there is significant overlap between my definition and that of the FLN, the key
First, note that I used the word “primarily” to describe the placement of ingredients
with-in the learnwith-ing process. This qualification applies across the board. Active learnwith-ing and formative
assessment might be best suited for the classroom, but they should exist outside of it as well. First
exposure can also happen inside the classroom; some research suggests that the flipped model is
actually improved by the use of inquiry learning activities that could be best deployed within the
classroom (Schneider et al 2013).
Similarly, direct instruction does not have to be limited to out of class time. For some, the
flipped classroom dovetails perfectly with arguments for eliminating any form of lecturing in the
classroom at all. While there are certainly good arguments in favor of reducing or dramatically
reshaping traditional lectures (c.f. Gibbs 1981, Hanford 2011), I am not of the crowd that
be-lieves lecturing should be abandoned entirely. While I believe it is based on moving the majority
of direct instruction out of the classroom, the flipped model still allows for in-class lectures.
Compared to in-person lectures, there are clear benefits to offering direct instruction
out-side of class time: students can pause, rewind, and replay online videos as often as they need to
reduce confusion; they can review them later in the semester; and instruction itself can be more
easily differentiated based on learners’ progress and knowledge. Simply considering efficiency, the
flipped classroom is a win. The limited time scheduled for learners to meet together in a
class-room with their instructor is one of a course’s most precious resources. If most students grasp
most of a lecture fairly easily (or at least need more time to digest, reflect, and discover where the
weaknesses are in what they’ve learned), it does not make sense to monopolize that time when it
could be put to better use. In addition to active learning, one such “better use” is targeting direct
My second caveat is aimed squarely at a deficiency in the “official” definition. It is
gener-ally recognized that students spend far less time on their courses outside the classroom than
facul-ty would like (McDougall and Granby 1996; Zuriff 2003; Kolari et al. 2008; Brint and Cantwell
2008; Lineweaver 2010; Nonis and Hudson 2010). While institutional expectations vary, by some
estimates students spend less than half the time they should (Brint and Cantwell 2008, 2442).
In-terpreting this figure is complicated because so many factors are involved: student employment,
social and intramural commitments, the shifting and balancing of time between courses,
stu-dents’ prior academic achievement and level of self-regulation, and the cognitive strategies they
employ outside the classroom. It should be no surprise, then, that most research on study time
reports an unclear relationship with academic achievement (Nonis and Hudson 2010, 229).
Students’ limited academic engagement outside the classroom has a lot to do, I believe,
with their perception of the time, place, and rhythm of learning. In a traditional face-to-face
course, there is a bias in favor of the classroom as the primary location where learning takes
place. “Free time” outside of class is seen as secondary, and is largely viewed as preparation for
the primary learning space—not as learning in and of itself. How much time a student devotes 1
to a course in their “free time” is a function of the hard deadlines for summative course
assess-ments combined with their perception of how much will be personally expected of them during
any given class session (Lineweaver 2010, 204). Few looming deadlines and low faculty
expecta-tions mean that most students spend as little time thinking about their classes as possible.
While the FLN definition posits a greater importance for “free time” (referred to as “the
individual learning space”) it does nothing to combat the disjointed relationship between time in
and out of the classroom. In fact, I fear that it might serve to exacerbate the problem. Students
already see what they do outside the classroom as marginally related to what happens within the
classroom. A flipped classroom, following the strict FLN definition, would increase the amount of
work students do outside of class time without necessarily showing how it is important or relevant
for their perceived primary learning space. Given the realities of student time management, this
could lead to students choosing to further neglect their out-of-class work or, depending on how
things are framed in a particular course, lead to students not attending class sessions at all.
This is unacceptable—presuming that we are not interested in a purely hybrid or online
course and instead want to emphasize the value derived both from technology and the classroom
experience. A functional definition of a flipped classroom, then, cannot exclude the requirement
that in- and out-of-class learning experiences be structured in such a way that students see them
as parts of one seamless, coherent whole. There are four facets to this. First, a flipped course must
be structured in order to ensure attendance in the classroom. Second, it must ensure maximal
compliance with the work expected of students outside of class. Third, the two halves of the
course must be integrated so that students see what happens in each as mutually supportive and
important. Finally, the course must be structured in a way that makes clear to students that their
mastery of content is the primary goal.
A variety of mechanisms exist to address these facets, but research still needs to be done
to identify the circumstances in which each are most effective. Surveillance and monitoring
through Learning Management Systems give some limited insight in to student compliance.
On-line quizzes can promote compliance and mastery, especially if students are given multiple
oppor-tunities to complete them. In-class quizzes can promote attendance and compliance, but they
have the downside of using precious seat time. Peer instruction (and other active learning
simultane-ously emphasizing mastery (Crouch and Mazur 2001). Even something as simple as a dedicated
“question time” at the start of each class period, perhaps in conjunction with a “muddiest point”
exercise, can emphasize content mastery as well as the integration of time in and out of the
class-room (King 2011; Simpson-Beck 2011).
JUSTIFYINGTHE FLIPPED CLASSROOM
Bergmann and Sams may not be the fathers of the flipped classroom that they are
por-trayed as, but they do deserve credit for the best explanation of its value. In developing their
ped-agogical approach, Bergmann and Sams were not driven by the innovation of video-recorded
lectures. They focused instead on when and how students would benefit from the personal
pres-ence of their instructors (Bergmann and Sams 2012). Direct instruction could take place just as
effectively and perhaps more effectively, they argued, in students’ “individual learning space.”
The truly crucial time was when students found themselves probing their understanding of the
content and trying to apply it—as when completing homework. In those moments the presence
of the instructor would be most helpful. A traditional course, propelled largely by the use of
lec-ture, provides minimal in-class time for student reflection, application of concepts, and evaluating
mastery. All three are vital for the learning process.
So while there is nothing particularly novel about the the flipped classroom, broadly
con-ceived, its arrangement of the four instructional ingredients is a conscious attempt to focus on
student learning. That puts it squarely in the camp of approaches known as “student-centered”
as opposed to “instructor-centered” teaching (c.f. Wright 2011; Weimer 2013). Three specific
fea-tures of the flipped classroom promote this change.
First, the flipped classroom makes deliberate choices to increase student engagement with
time for students to reflect on content and increasing opportunities for active interaction with the
professor and fellow learners. Spending course time in active learning decreases students’ ability
to passively receive content and also leads to more authentic and meaningful interaction with
content. What happens in the classroom, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. In his book
Teaching Naked, José Antonio Bowen outlines a series of changes to classroom and campus practice
designed to improve the quality of education and keep traditional institutions of higher learning
relevant amidst widespread change. He writes “[o]ur challenge as 21st-century teachers is to
leverage new content and new delivery systems into new course designs. We need to create
cour-ses that require and reward students who engage with material before and between
classes” (Bowen 2012, 127). This vision stands in absolute contrast to the one I described above,
where student “free time” is seen as secondary to primary learning time in the classroom.
The second way that the flipped classroom promotes student-centered learning is by
facil-itating “agile teaching.” Some of the best advice I have ever been given about teaching came in a
new faculty orientation, where I was told “if you’re able to take your plan for the day and deliver
it to empty classroom without any noticeable problem, then you’re doing something wrong.” This
pattern, unfortunately common in higher ed, could be called “ballistic teaching” because of the
way it begins with and never deviates from its preplanned trajectory (Beatty et al. 2006, 101).
This method does a lot to meet faculty needs, specifically the need to ensure that content is
cov-ered (c.f. Yoshinobu and Jones 2012, 303). Content coverage is not the same as learning, however.
In contrast to ballistic teaching, agile teaching is designed to allow for “genuine discovery of and
spontaneous adjustment to students’ pedagogic needs” (Beatty et al. 2006, 105).
The final way that flipped instruction centers on students is by directly requiring them to
self-directed, self-regulated, and self-determined learning (Kitsantas and Dabbagh 2011;
Zim-merman 2008; Knowles 1975; Towle and Cottrell 1996; Oddi 1987; Hase and Kenyon 2013;
Pintrich 2004). While each theory is elaborated in its own way, they share a common core. The
type of students that the flipped classroom hopes to develop recognize that learning is not
some-thing that happens to them. Rather, it is a process in which they need to be active participants.
Here the word “active” goes beyond its usage in the term “active learning.” It is certainly
impor-tant that learners literally and physically become active in the learning process, shedding the role
of a passive listener. More than that, learners must become metacognitively active in the process.
In addition to becoming aware of their own strengths and weaknesses as learner, students must
be able to monitor their learning in a course, evaluate their success in comparison to standards
and personal goals, and then plan and executive effective strategies for improving their learning
(Butler and Winne 1995; Zimmerman 2002; Boekaerts and Cascallar 2006; van Merriënboer
and Sluijsmans 2008)
To the average faculty member, this sounds fantastic. But what does it look like in
prac-tice? Self-directed students are aware of course requirements and plan wisely for how to meet
them. They keep track of their grades and progress in a course and do not need to ask their
in-structors “where do I stand.” They avail themselves of all available resources and communicate
proactively when they encounter a problem. Taking greater ownership of their own learning
both increases their mastery of a course’s content and leaves them better learners for the next
faculty member they encounter. Ideally, the skills that self-directed learners acquire should help
them pursue learning on their own long after their formal education is over. In short, creating
self-directed or self-regulated learners is so important that according to one scholar it may be
AN EXPERIMENTIN FLIPPING The Background
I began leading faculty development workshops on the flipped classroom in the spring of
2012. When I was approached shortly afterward about adjunct teaching American government
courses, I knew that it would be the perfect opportunity to practice what I had been preaching.
Due to enrollment issues, I did not have my own course in fall 2012. Instead I co-taught two
sec-tions with another faculty member who was to go on medical leave for the second half of the
se-mester. Before the term began, we worked hard to ensure that we were each teaching half of one
coherent whole—not just giving students two separate half-semester courses. While students were
introduced to me on the first day of the semester, I took over the responsibility for class sessions
after the midterm. During winter 2013, though, I taught my own separate section of American
government.
Since beginning to teach in 2003, I have offered this course more than a dozen times at a
number of different schools, most of them private liberal arts colleges. Practically speaking, the
course is in constant evolution as I adjust assessments, develop new activities, and balance the
vast number of topics that need to be covered in a survey course. Prior to this experiment, the
course featured regular discussions, numerous games and simulations, and the occasional use of
case or problem based learning (often during election season). Still, the course was very
informa-tion heavy and lectures took up a significant porinforma-tion of class time. While I have only offered the
course as a traditional face-to-face in-seat course, it has always been significantly “web
enhanced.” For many years I have offered students the ability to review course sessions by
The Plan
Given the structure of my course and the direction I had been headed, it seemed a
natur-al candidate for flipping. Although I emphasized above that the flipped classroom involves more
than just recording videos, that was the place I began. My first decision was to take my stable of
lectures and turn them into “video lessons,” or “vLessons” for short. I did not make any
signifi-cant changes to the content of these lectures simply because they were going to be viewed online.
I did, however, consciously choose to divide the resulting videos into five to ten minute segments
that corresponded to the structure of the material, rather than giving students one monolithic
video to watch. While experts disagree on the ideal length of an online video, good neurological
research exists that shows the ten minute mark to be a critical point at which attention begins to
wane (c.f. Medina 2008, 89).
Because I was producing video lessons, not just audio, I spent a great deal of time
work-ing on the visuals to accompany my material. I consciously chose to avoid the use of “lecture
cap-ture” software and hardware. These tools are designed to be easy to use, allowing faculty to
record themselves as they teach within the classroom. Ease of use, however, is their only real
draw. Good for recording a class session, they make for poor viewing—giving the impression that
one is lurking in the back of a large lecture hall rather than having the instructor speak directly
and personally to the learner.
Having eliminated lecture capture, I decided that most of my videos would take the form
of “screencasts”—recordings of material shown on a computer screen. The most common form
of the lecture screencast is a recording of a PowerPoint presentation. The majority of my lectures
already had PowerPoint slides for when I taught them in class. These slides have themselves
approach strives to communicate more effectively and in conjunction with the insights of
cogni-tive science (c.f. Reynolds 2008). After reading several books on the neuroscience of learning
(Zull 2002, Medina 2008) and working with faculty on producing their own videos, I have
devel-oped a suspicion that the repeated use of voice-over PowerPoints is a poor choice for gaining and
maintaining student interest. While a few of my videos were screencasts of Zen-style
presenta-tions (largely because they took less time to produce), most of my vLessons drew from a set of
visual styles that included animated concept maps, hand-drawn animations, and stop-action
pa-per-based animations. In almost none of my vLessons did I actually appear personally. 2
Having removed the majority of direct instruction from the classroom, I expanded many
of the games and simulations I had already been using and added more discussions. To integrate
the work students did outside of class with our time in the classroom, I spent the first ten to
fif-teen minutes of each class session taking questions and using the PollEverywhere website to
de-liver brief ungraded quizzes that I integrated with peer learning and just-in-time lectures as
needed. While I followed this pattern in my fall and winter courses, I did so more consistently in
the winter semester.
The Reality
I will be forthright in admitting that the outcome of my experiment was far from the ideal
I would have liked. A few specific factors played into that. To begin with, these were the first
courses I had taught at this institution. While I could talk with colleagues about their general
ex-periences, I had no true opportunity to compare what happened in my flipped classes and
non-flipped classes I had taught in the past.
Second, understanding results from my fall 2012 courses is complicated. In both sections,
students had a significant disruption to their learning in the form of two professors swapping
control at midsemester. While we tried to smooth the transition as much as possible, several
stu-dents commented—both personally and in end-of-term surveys—that the switch was very
stress-ful for them. The other instructor taught her half in a traditional lecture-heavy format; only my
half of the semester was flipped. In addition to only having a limited experience with flipped
learning, this meant that students’ perspectives on their learning would be heavily influenced by
other differences between the instructors.
Finally, as a full-time staff member of the University, I taught all three courses on a
sepa-rate adjunct contract. My teaching responsibilities, both in and out of the classroom, were on top
of my existing forty hours of work each week. While I tried to get as much work done before
each semester started, it was impossible to adequately prepare all the video lessons. That meant
that many vLessons were being prepared and made available for students literally at the last
mo-ment. For a few topics I had to compromise and prepare videos that were not as detailed or as
engaging as I wanted them to be. I also had hoped to offer students a series of online quizzes they
could use to assess their own learning. Aside from a few at the start of the semester, these quizzes
fell by the wayside.
EVALUATINGTHE FLIPPED CLASSROOM Background and Research Design
My employer is a four year regional public university of more than 24,000 students, of
which approximately 20,000 are undergraduates. Our principal campus is located west of Grand
Rapids, Michigan’s second largest metropolitan area; an additional campus is located within the
59.2% of the University’s students were female, 15.2% were minority, and over 81.1% studied
full-time. Forty percent of learners are first generation college students, The Political Science
de-partment has 191 majors which puts the dede-partment in line with Chemistry (193), History (188),
Writing (203), and Computer Science (173). By contrast, the top three undergraduate majors are
Education (1258), Biomedical Sciences (1214), and Psychology (1083).
In each of my three courses, I asked students to complete an end-of-semester anonymous
survey delivered through our learning management system. To encourage participation I gave
each student who completed the survey a marginal number of extra credit points. For my fall
courses, this unofficial survey was the only course evaluation students completed. My winter
stu-dents also completed an official department evaluation on paper. The questions on my survey
asked them to report on specific actions and behaviors related to learning, to reflect on their
per-ceptions of the learning process, and finally to evaluate their overall response to learning in a
flipped classroom.
Response rates across my three courses were very good, above 85% in my winter course
and above 90% in my two fall sections. Female students respondents outnumbered male
respon-dents (see Table 1). In two out of three sections, first year sturespon-dents outnumbered other class
standings. In all three, the majority of students were taking the course to meet the University’s
general education requirements. Non-majors outnumbered majors in all sections, though in one
the split was almost even . Aside from the fact that in two sections students reported a strong de3
-sire to take the course, by most measures these three sections appear to be standard intro to
Student Behavior in the Flipped Classroom
Given that the greatest departure from normal for my students was the use of video
lessons, I asked several questions to gauge how students complied with this unfamiliar
expecta-tion. Self-reported compliance was high in all three sections, with over 60% in all sections
report-ing that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I watched/listened to the video
lessons consistently every week” (Figure 2). When asked if they rewatched any vLessons in
prepa-ration for their final exam, more than 3/4 of respondents in each section said “yes.” 4
More important than the question of whether students watched the videos is what they
did during them. The physical act of note-taking has been shown to be crucial for memory
for-mation and the learning process (Boreham et al. 1988; Brazeau 2006; Kobayashi 2006). While
students are conditioned to take notes during an in-class lecture, the same may not be true for
online videos. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they took notes while watching the
video lessons (Figure 3). An interesting pattern emerges. Students in the fall 2012 sections were
not specifically instructed to take notes while watching videos. Not surprisingly, then, less than
half of students in one section reported taking notes all or most of the time. Sixty-nine percent
of the respondents in the other fall section, however, answered in those same categories. The key
to the discrepancy may lie in the fact that this latter section is also the one with fewer first-year
students and a much higher percentage of Political Science majors. Based on these results, at the
start of the winter 2013 term I explicitly reminded students to take notes while watching the
vLessons. While the total number of students reporting that they took notes all or most of the
time was roughly the same as the major-heavy fall course, a greater percentage of respondents
did choose “all the time.”
Eighty-five percent and 86% of students in -03, F12 and -06, F12 reported “yes” respectively. Seventy-4
Respondents were also asked to report how often they paused or rewound the video
lessons, either to clarify what they had heard or to facilitate better note taking (Figure 4). While
all three sections had 50% or more of their responses in either the “all the time” or “most of the
time” categories, the winter 2013 and the major-heavy fall course once again had higher levels of
compliance. More than 75% of respondents in those sections answered “all” or “most” of the
time.
Given that compliance with watching the videos was not universal, I asked students in the
winter semester course for the main reason that they failed to watch videos (Table 3). Roughly
two-thirds of respondents reported not watching the videos for reasons generally related to time.
While most of these respondents indicated that they could not find the time to watch a video, a
not insignificant proportion of students noted that the last minute posting of videos contributed
to their inability to watch them. This feedback was expected, given my own workload limitations
described above.
Respondents were also asked their perceptions about the length and amount of video they
were expected to watch. Students in the winter course were asked two separate questions, one
about the length of videos on average and the second question about the total amount of video
per class session. These results appear in Figure 5. While time may have been a large factor in
students being able to watch the videos, they overwhelmingly agreed that the amount of video
was acceptable.
Student Perception of the Flipped Classroom
Students were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statement “I
learned better (mastered the material better) in the flipped classroom compared to a traditional
cate-gories of responses pass 50% of the respondents. These numbers, however, are complicated by
the circumstances of my three sections. Positive responses are lowest for my two fall courses, the
sections that were exposed to only half a semester of flipped instruction. The largest percentage
of negative responses came from section six, which—as noted above—had a much higher
per-centage of Political Science majors and non-first-year students. Given that these students have
progressed farther into their undergraduate education, they may be more resistant to an
instruc-tional model that deviates from what their past experiences.
While these results from this question may not be as glowing as desired, I do want to
high-light two bright spots. First, the number of students who reported being uncertain about the
change in their learning is quite large, roughly a third of all respondents in two sections and
ap-proximately a fifth of respondents in the major-heavy course. With greater exposure to flipped
instruction and the benefit of hindsight, many of these respondents might find themselves on the
positive side of the equation. I also take it as a good sign that in the winter 2013 section which
had flipped instruction from start to end, the proportion of positive responses was the highest.
While still not breaking 50%, positive student responses outnumbered negative responses by a
ratio of two-and-a-half to one. 5
Evaluating either teaching or learning is notoriously difficult, and it makes sense that
stu-dent perceptions of their own learning and learning environment should be ambiguous. Not all
students have sufficient metacognitive skills to reflect upon their learning, and frequently the real
It should be noted that there are, as of yet, no definitive studies as to whether the flipped classroom actu
5
impact of an education only emerges years later. To ground the question of student perceptions,
I asked several more concrete questions about the learning process. Students were asked to agree
or disagree with the statement “If I did not understand the material, there was ample
opportuni-ty to get my questions answered satisfactorily in-class.” While I have no previous non-flipped data
for comparison, students overwhelmingly saw class time as open to their questions. Positive
re-sponses—either “strongly agree” or “agree”—ranged from 78% for section three, 97% for the
major-heavy section six, and 91% for the winter course.
Students were less certain when asked “In-class time was spent more effectively with the
flipped class compared to a traditional classroom.” The results, presented in Figure 7, strongly
parallel the results of students’ perception of their own learning. The comments made in
re-sponse to that question apply here as well. Students in the half-flipped sections were less positive
but strongly uncertain. Removing lectures from the classroom represented a big change in their
expectations of how the “primary learning space” should be used. Students in the winter section 6
who had a whole semester of flipped instruction, though, were less uncertain and more positive
(though still only barely only a majority of respondents).
Students Affective Response to the Flipped Classroom
To evaluate students’ overall feelings about the flipped classroom, I asked two basic
ques-tions. First, students indicated their agreement with the simple statement “I enjoyed the flipped
classroom” (Figure 8). By sheer numbers, students reacted positively to the experience. Three
quarters of students in the winter course and the major-heavy fall course responded with either
an “agree” or “strongly agree.” This is particularly curious for the latter course; despite their
un-certainty about the change in learning styles, students enjoyed the change. While I expected the
It may also be that the use of the word “effectively” was a poor choice, inviting far more student inter
-other fall course to have higher positive responses, it appears that students were more uncertain
about their experience than actually negative. 7
Beyond their feelings, I asked students whether they believed the University should offer
more flipped classes (Figure 9). In each section, a sizable portion of the respondents were unable
to decide whether more flipped classes would be desirable or not. While half the winter course
wanted to see more flipped instruction, the two half-flipped sections were predictably less
enthu-siastic. Nearly half of the major-heavy section were opposed to more flipped courses.
Student Comments
In addition to the closed-ended questions, I also asked students six separate open-ended
questions: what they liked about the course, what they did not like about the course, what they
would do to improve it, what they would specifically change about the flipped aspect of the
course, how they would describe their overall course experience, and whether they felt the course
prepared them to learn on their own. As could be expected, student comments run the gamut
and generally mirror responses from the closed-ended questions.
Some responses clearly demonstrate that students found the flipped classroom to be a
no-ticeable and unwelcome departure from what they perceived to be the normal way of things. The
following quotes are presented as typed by students, spelling and grammatical errors included.
I honestly feel as tho I didn't learn that much. I would have learned more with note tak-ing. The vlessons were very helpful but I wish we would have heard those lessons in class rather than on our own. I feel like class only discussed one little piece of the lessons and then we were tested on the lessons as a whole. (–06, F12)
There are a number of ways to interpret this. Because of the number of first-year students and the fact 7
I feel as if the prof should of told us more about [the flipped classroom] at the begin-ning, like to take notes while watching the videos. Or say that you won't have any notes because the prof doesn't give them out. (–06, F12)
[As a suggested change]: Watch the video lessons in class. (–01, W13)
The flippes sessions were a bit confusing. I liked the traditional because we could do our readin out of class and learned in class. (–03, F12)
[In response to whether the flipped class prepared them for self-learning]: No I don't believe so because I usually would prefer to not learn on my own and instead have someone step by step teach me. (–01, W13)
For every quote that was negative about the flipped classroom or revealed students who
were resisting the idea of self-directed learning, there were quotes that showed just the opposite.
Some students clearly realized the value in moving direct instruction out of the classroom.
[As something they liked about the class]: How the video lessons were still there at the end of the year to review and answer questions for the final. (–06, F12)
I enjoyed this class, it was always different and I liked how it wasn't just the students sitting and in a lecture all hour. (–01, W13)
The one thing I liked would be how we got to interact with groups and play games to understand the content more. (–01, W13)
More gratifying, though, are the unsolicited comments from students in response to the
question of whether they felt more prepared for learning in the future.
Yes, I believe that the video lessons force students to kind of take control of their own learning and comprehension. (–03, F12)
I learned a new note-taking skill because instead of just copying the notes the professor put up on display on a board or in a power point while they speak,
I decided which information to record and was able to repeat any information I missed as many times as I pleased. (–06, F12)
Yes. I feel that the video lessons were helpful. When I didn't understand something on the video, I was much more inclined to do my own research on the topic than I was when we only had in class lectures. (–03, F12)
I've personally never experienced a flip class room. While in some areas it did clarify most material, there were others that would leave me with question; I can't ask a video a question. However, I did like the flipped classroom because it allocated more time in class to dive further in depth about an issue or questions. (–01, W13)
Yes, especially with the learning projects. They were a large portion of our grade which was done entirely outside of class. I thought this class was taught very well and I liked the format in comparison to my other classes. It made me more of an individual learner outside of class. (–01, W13)
CONCLUSIONAND DISCUSSION
As contingent faculty, my opportunities to teach depend on the department’s need. With
no scheduled sabbaticals and decreased student enrollment, I have not taught since my winter
2013 course. I consider the experiment successful enough, however, that I will continue to flip my
courses in the future. While I cannot demonstrate that students learned more or performed better
than they would have without the flipped classroom, I am convinced that the theory behind it is
solid enough to continue without reservation—albeit with improvements to the compromised
form that my courses took. I hope that those future experiments can contribute to what will be a
growing body of research about the impact of flipped instruction and how to maximize its
effec-tiveness.
Before I had taught my own flipped classes, I had counseled faculty in my workshops to
ease their way into the process. As I can now attest to from personal experience, flipping takes a
lot of time. Even for a course that has been taught many times before, the effort involved in
tran-sitioning to a flipped model can make it a whole new course prep. I advise faculty to take an
in-cremental approach—especially those who are hesitant, short on time, or used to teaching in one
particular way. Given the number of elements that need to be coordinated, I believe that it is
bet-ter to flip a small portion of a class really well rather than flip the whole thing poorly. Based on
in-struction provided sufficiently in advance in order to respect student schedules, which is then in8
-tegrated with a meaningful classroom experience.
Having read my students’ open-ended responses on the survey, I find myself agreeing
even more strongly with Robert Talbert that creating self-directed or self-regulated learners
should be my highest goal. I am realistic enough to understand that few students enter an intro to
American government course enthused about being there, and few will leave converted into
Polit-ical Science majors. While I certainly want them to understand the complexity of American
po-litical parties and the role of the judiciary within the popo-litical process, the brutal truth is that in
five years the majority of students who sojourned in my class will have lost these precious details.
I have a much greater chance of a lasting impact, though, if I can improve who my students are
as learners. This means first of all teaching with an eye towards “transfer”—teaching skills,
con-cepts, and strategies that students will be able to reactivate later in life in situations of greater
per-sonal importance (McGinty et al. 2013, 49).
Second, it is vital that my teaching help to make students more self-directed and
self-reg-ulated. The variety of comments mentioned above show that students vary wildly in their
per-spective on learning. Part of the issue has to be that students know next to nothing about the
learning process. Athletes, even at the student level, learn about the proper function of their
bod-ies and how to achieve maximum performance. Most students have at best been taught that
learning is a matter of “style” and that everyone has their own style in which they must be taught
in order to learn successfully. Once taken as a given in education circles, recent research casts a
great deal of doubt on learning styles (c.f. Pashler et al. 2008). By contrast, neuroscience and
cognitive science are revealing more and more about the actual mechanisms by which learning
occurs (Zull 2002; Medina 2008; Doyle 2013). Unfortunately this information has yet to reach
many faculty, let alone students.
If we want to develop truly self-directed learners, we must go on the offensive. Rather
than presuming they will find their way to success on their own, students need to be equipped as
soon as possible to understand their own learning. And when we adopt pedagogical innovations
like the flipped classroom, we need to be upfront with the reasons why we are deviating from
what students have experienced before. Clearly, change will be hard for many students and we
should expect resistance. Perhaps the most useful metaphor, though, is that of the coach. In
ath-letics, one of the things a coach does is help individual athletes reach their maximum potential by
working with them individually on their strengths and weaknesses. A significant portion of
teach-ing, especially student-centered teachteach-ing, consists of this kind of coaching. In traditional
class-rooms defined by ballistic instruction and passive students, the opportunity for true coaching gets
lost. We all know that motivated students can avail themselves of our coaching services during
office hours, but more often than not those who need it most are the least likely to come in the
first place. By adjusting the relationship between what we do in and out of the classroom—and
what we expect of students in those spaces—we dramatically increase our ability to serve as
effec-tive coaches for as many students as possible.
TABLE 1: SURVEY RESPONSE RATES
* Gender of survey respondents is based on self-reporting. Gender for purposes of overall course percentages is
based on instructor perception. Inconsistency for section -06 is reported without explanation.
Responses Students
in Course
Female Responses
Females in Course
PLS 102-03,Fall 2012 40
(90.1%)
44 24
(60%)
25 (56.8%)
PLS 102-06, Fall 2012 29
(96.7%)
30 17*
(58.6%)
15 (50%)
PLS 102-01, Winter 2013 35
(85.4%)
41 18
(51.5%)
FIGURE 1: CLASS STANDINGSOF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
-03, F12 -06, F12 -01, W13
9% 3%
2.5%
14% 28%
22.5%
17%
31% 15%
60%
38% 60%
TABLE 2: RESPONDENTS’ MOTIVATIONSFOR TAKINGTHE COURSE
-03, F12 -06, F12 -01, W13
Is this course in your intended major? (Yes)
27.5% 48.3% 20%
Are you taking this course to fulfill general education requirements? (Yes)
77.5% 62% 86%
Did you have a strong desire to take this course? (Yes)
FIGURE 2: RESPONSETO “I WATCHED/LISTENEDTOTHEVIDEOLESSONS CONSISTENTLYEVERYWEEK"
* In addition to the Likert categories reported, 6.897% of respondents in -06, F12 failed to answer the question.
-03, F12 -06, F12* -01, W13
17% 21%
22.5%
49% 48%
42.5%
20%
10.5%
15% 14%
10.5% 17.5%
0% 3.5%
2.5%
FIGURE 3: RESPONSESTO “I TOOKNOTESWHILE WATCHINGVIDEOLESSONS"
-03, F12 -06, F12 -01, W13
51%
34.5%
27.5%
23% 34.5%
17.5%
11.5% 14%
30%
8.5% 10.5%
7.5%
6% 7%
17.5%
FIGURE 4: RESPONSETO “I REWOUNDORPAUSED VIDEOLESSONSWHEN I NEEDED TOHEARSOMETHINGREPEATEDORSO I COULDTAKENOTES"
-03, F12 -06, F12 -01, W13
49%
45%
30% 31% 31%
27.5%
20% 17%
27.5%
0% 3.5%
10%
0% 3.5%
5%
TABLE 3: RESPONSESTO “ONTHEOCCASIONSTHATYOUDIDN'T WATCHALL/ANY OFTHEVIDEO LESSONS, WHICHREASONBESTDESCRIBESWHY?”
* N = 35
Reason -01, W13
I couldn’t find the time to watch the videos 48.57%
I forgot that we had videos to watch 28.57%
Videos were not posted to the website early enough for me to schedule time to watch them
17.1%
Technical problems prevented me from watching the videos 2.86%
I just didn’t see the point in watching them; they don’t seem that important 2.86%
I lacked the technology that I needed to watch the videos 0%
FIGURE 5: RESPONSETOLENGTHANDAMOUNTOFVIDEOS
* Results reported for -01, W13 only. Respondents in fall 2012 courses were asked one composite question that did
not distinguish between average and total lengths. Results from those questions were generally similar, with strong-ly agree and agree compromising approximatestrong-ly 70% of respondents.
Average video length was good Total video length per session was good
14.25% 11%
54.25% 63%
20% 20%
11.5%
6%
0% 0%
FIGURE 6: RESPONSESTO “I LEARNEDBETTER (MASTEREDTHEMATERIALBETTER) INTHEFLIPPEDCLASSROOMCOMPAREDTOATRADITIONALCLASSROOM”
-03, F12 -06, F12 -01, W13
14.5%
10%
2.5%
34%
17% 22.5%
31.5%
21% 37.5%
11.5% 38%
25%
8.5% 14%
12.5%
FIGURE 7: RESPONSESTO “IN-CLASSTIMEWASSPENTMOREEFFECTIVELYWITH THEFLIPPEDCLASSCOMPAREDTOATRADITIONALCLASSROOM”
* One respondent in the winter 2013 course failed to answer the question.
-03, F12 -06, F12 -01, W13*
25.5%
10.5%
2.5%
28.5%
17% 22.5%
20% 41.5%
45%
20% 24%
15%
3% 7%
15%
FIGURE 8: RESPONSESTO “I ENJOYEDTHEFLIPPEDCLASSROOM”
-03, F12 -06, F12 -01, W13
34%
24%
2.5%
40% 55%
47.5%
12%
3.5% 32.5%
14% 10.5%
10%
0% 7%
7.5%
FIGURE 9: RESPONSESTO “I WOULDLIKETOSEEMORECOURSESAT GRAND
VALLEYOFFEREDUSINGTHEFLIPPEDCLASSROOMFORMAT”
* One respondent in this section failed to answer the question.
-03, F12* -06, F12 -01, W13
23%
14%
10%
28.5%
17% 20%
28.5% 28%
40%
6% 31%
15%
14%
10% 12.5%
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Álvarez, Brenda. 2012. Flipping the classroom: Homework in class, lessons at home. The Education Digest 77 (8) (Apr 2012): 18-21.
Anderson, L. W., D. R. Krathwohl, P. W. Airasian, K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, Pintrich,P.R.,Raths, J., and M. C. Wittrock, eds. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Baker, J. Wesley. 2000. The "classroom flip": Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. Paper presented at Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Florida Community College at Jacksonville, FL.
Beatty, Ian D., William J. Leonard, William J. Gerace, and Robert J. Dufresne. 2006. Question driven in-struction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In Audience response systems in HIgher education: Applications and cases., ed. David A. Banks, Chapter 7. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Bennett, Brian. The flipped class is here to stay. 2011Available from http://www.brianbennett.org/blog/
the-flipped-class-is-here-to-stay/.
Bergmann, Jonathan, and Aaron Sams. 2012. Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eu-gene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Berrett, Dan. 2012. How 'flipping' the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Education Digest 78 (1) (Sep 2012): 36-41.
Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of education objectives: The classification of educational goals. handbook i, cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.
Bloom, Benjamin. 1974. Time and learning. The American Psychologist 29 (9): 682-8.
Boekaerts, Monique, and Eduardo Cascallar. 2006. How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review 18 (3) (Sep 2006): 199-210. Bonwell, Charles C., and James A. Eison. 1991. Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Education
Resources Information Center, ED340272.
Boreham, N., J. Lilley, and C. Morgan. 1988. Learning from lectures: The effect of varying the detail in lecture handouts on note-taking and Recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2 (2): 115-22.
Bowen, José Antonio. 2012. Teaching naked : How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning. 1st ed. Hoboken: Wiley.
Brazeau, Gayle A. 2006. Handouts in the classroom: Is note taking a lost skill? American Journal of Pharma-ceutical Education 70 (2): 38.
Brint, Steven, and Allison M. Cantwell. 2010. Undergraduate time use and academic outcomes: Results from the university of california undergraduate experience survey 2006. Teachers College Record 112 (9): 2441-70.
Bruff, Derek O., Douglas H. Fisher, Kathryn E. McEwen, and Blaine E. Smith. 2013. Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learn-ing and TeachLearn-ing 9 (2).
Brunsell, Eric, and Martin Horejsi. 2013. A flipped classroom in action. The Science Teacher 80 (2) (Feb 2013): 8.
Budzak, Gary. 2011. High school classes flip, make use of technology. Available from http://
www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/hilliard/news/2011/12/14/high-school-classes-flip-make-Bull, Glen, Bill Ferster, and Willy Kjellstrom. 2012. Inventing the flipped classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology.
Butler, Deborah L., and Philip H. Winne. 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical syn-thesis. Review of Educational Research 65 (3): 245-81.
Butt, Adam. 2014. Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from australia. Business Education & Accreditation 6 (1): 33-43.
Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. 1987. Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin March: 3-7.
Critz, Catharine M., and Diane Knight. 2013. Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education. Nurse Educator 38 (5): 210-213.
Crouch, Catherine, and Eric Mazur. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69 (9): 970.
Davies, Randall S., Douglas L. Dean, and Nick Ball. 2013. Flipping the classroom and instructional tech-nology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Techtech-nology Research and Development 61 (4): 563-580.
D'Mello, S. 02. Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction (29) (.) (/01/2014).): 1. Doyle, Terry. 2013. The new science of learning: How to learn in harmony with your brain. Herndon, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
———. 2008. Helping Students Learn in a learner-centered environment: A guide to facilitating learning in higher educa-tion. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Edosomwan, Simeon, Sitalaskshmi Kalangot Prakasan, Doriane Kouame, Jonelle Watson, and Tom Sey-mour. 2011. The history of social media and its impact on business. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 16 (3) (Jul 2011): 79-91.
Enfield, Jacob. 2013. Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergradu-ate multimedia students at CSUN. Techtrends 57 (6) (May 2013): 14-27.
Fell, Colleen. 2013. Flipped classroom courses create same results as traditional classes. The Daily Ne-braskan, October 30, 2013, 2013.
Findlay-Thompson, Sandi, and Peter Mombourquette. 2014. Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an Un-dergraduate business course. Business Education & Accreditation 6 (1): 63.
Flipped Learning Network. Definition of flipped learning. 2014. Available from http://flippedlearn-ing.org/domain/46
Fulton, Kathleen. 2012. 10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan 94 (2) (-10-01): 20.
Gehringer, Edward F., and Barry W. Peddycord III. 2013. The inverted-lecture model: A case study in computer architecture. Paper presented at SIGCSE '13 Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical sym-posium on computer science education.
Gibbs, G. 1981. Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing. Birmingham, UK: SCED Occasional Paper, 8.
Hanford, Emily. 2011. The problem with lecturing. American RadioWorks. Available from
http://american-radioworks.publicradio.org/features/tomorrows-college/lectures/problem-with-lecturing.html.
Hase, Stewart, and Chris Kenyon, eds. 2013. Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action. London: Blooms-bury Publishing.
Hoffman, Ellen S. 2014. Beyond the flipped classroom: Redesigning A research methods course for e3 instruction. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online) 7 (1): 51.
King, Daniel. 2011. Using clickers to identify the muddiest points in large chemistry classes. Journal of Chemical Education 88 (11) (-11-01): 1485.
Kitsantas, Anastasia, and Nada Dabbagh. 2011. The role of web 2.0 technologies in self-regulated learn-ing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2011 (126): 99-106.
Knowles, M. S. 1975. Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett Publishing Compa-ny.
Kobayashi, K. 2006. Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytical review. Educational Psychology 26 : 459-77.
Kolari, S., C. Savander-Ranne, and E. -L Viskari. 2008. Learning needs time and effort: A time-use study of engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education 33 (5) (Oct): 483-98.
Krathwohl, David R. 2002. A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice 41 (4) (Au-tumn 2002): 212.
Lage, Maureen J., and Glenn Platt. 2000. The internet and the inverted classroom. The Journal of Economic Education 31 (1): 11-.
Lage, Maureen J., Glenn J. Platt, and Michael Treglia. 2000. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creat-ing an inclusive learncreat-ing environment. Journal of Economic Education 31 (1) (Winter 2000): 30.
LANDRUM, R. ERIC. 2006. College students' study time: Course level, time of semester, and grade earned. Psychological Reports 98 (3): 675; 675,682; 682.
Lavelle, Jerome P., Matthew T. Stimpson, and E. Downy Brill. 2013. Flipped out engineering economy: Converting a traditional class to an inverted model. IIE Annual Conference.Proceedings: 397-406. Lineweaver, Tara T. 2010. Online discussion assignments improve students' class preparation. Teaching of
Psychology 37 (3) (-07-01): 204; 204,209; 209.
Makice, Kevin. 2012. Flipping the classroom requires more than video. Available from http://
www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/04/flipping-the-classroom/.
Mason, G. S., T. R. Shuman, and K. E. Cook. 2013. Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted class-room to a traditional classclass-room in an upper-division engineering course. Education, IEEE Transactions on 56 (4): 430-5.
Maxwell, Lesli A. 2012. Q&A: Khan academy creator talks about K-12 innovation. Education Week 7 Mar. 2012: s18. Academic OneFile.
Mazur, Eric. 1991. Can we teach computers to teach? Computers in Physics Jan/Feb : 31.
McDougall, Dennis, and Cheryl Granby. 1996. How expectation of questioning method affects under-graduates' preparation for class. The Journal of Experimental Education 65 (1): 43-54.
McGinty, Jacqueline, Jean Radin, and Karen Kaminski. 2013. Brain-friendly teaching supports learning transfer. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2013 (137): 49-59.
McLaughlin, J. E., M. T. Roth, D. M. Glatt, N. Gharkholonarehe, C. A. Davidson, L. M. Griffin, D. A. Esserman, and R. J. Mumper. 2014. The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Med-ical Colleges 89 (2) (Feb): 236-43.
