Kenney, J. L., & Newcombe, E. (2014).

Flipping instruction in an undergraduate education

course: Findings from an action research study.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 1-13.

Flipping Instruction in an Undergraduate

Education Course: Findings from
an Action Research Study
Jane L. Kenney & Ellen Newcombe
West Chester University
This study measured the effectiveness of a blended,
flipped instructional approach in an undergraduate
education course. Blended learning combines online and
face-to-face instruction. Students learned course content
online and face-to-face time was used to supplement the
course material. This approach was adopted to increase
student preparation for and participation in class, to
promote higher-order thinking and active engagement in
the course material, and to enhance overall class
performance. An additional goal was to model effective
use of educational technology. Action research was
conducted across eight semesters to examine these
learning objectives and to make instructional
modifications.
Keywords: action research, doctoral education,
technology integration, professional development, power
users
INTRODUCTION
This article describes the first authors adoption of a blended or hybrid learning
approach to flip instruction in her undergraduate, introductory educational psychology
course. The course content consists of an overview of many important theories and research
in the areas of human development, learning, motivation, and learner differences, with an
emphasis on application in the classroom setting. Students are required to read and learn a
large amount of information. Traditionally, the course pedagogy has been predominantly
lectures interspersed with group activities.
Over the years of teaching the course, the instructor noticed more students coming to
class unprepared and unwilling to participate. Many seemed content to just sit back and
listen to the lectures, taking a passive rather than active approach to learning. Test scores
were below average for many students who tended to wait until right before the test to read
the textbook and study the material. Frequent comments from students on course
evaluations were too many lectures and too much material to learn. In addition, the
instructor was not modeling effective instruction to these future teachers. For these reasons,
________________________________________________________________________
Jane L. Kenney is an Associate Professor, in the Department of Professional and Secondary
Education, and Ellen Newcombe, Director, College of Education Technology Center at West
Chester University. Jane L. Kenney can be reached at [email protected].

Flipping Instruction in an Undergraduate Education Course

the decision was made to investigate alternative approaches to instructional delivery that
would promote more active student involvement in the learning process and, hopefully,
more successful learning of the material.
After a careful examination of the research, the instructor decided to use a blended or
hybrid learning model that combines both online and traditional face-to-face instruction.
Students were given the time equivalency of one of the two classes per week to learn the
course content online. The students were required to complete an online assignment and
take an online quiz before attending the face-to-face class. During the face-to-face class,
students worked in groups on activities that supplemented and applied the content that they
learned in the online assignment. This particular technique is called flipping. This blended,
flipped approach has been found to increase student engagement and interest in learning
by creating a more student-centered rather than teacher-directed instructional focus. The
instructor hoped to not only increase active learning of the course material, but to also
provide these teacher candidates with the opportunity to experience effective uses of
technology for their own learning and, hopefully, transfer this knowledge to their own
future classrooms.
The purpose of this study was to find out the effect of the blended, flipped method on
students preparation, participation, and learning as well as any barriers the students
encountered when using this new instructional delivery approach. Action research, a
systematic way for educators to observe, analyze, and interpret information about student
learning and then to use this information for planning and decision-making (Parsons &
Brown, 2002), was conducted throughout the eight semesters of implementation of the
flipped approach. The research results from this study were used to monitor not only the
effectiveness of the strategy in accomplishing the instructors objectives for using the
method, but also to make instructional refinements to the course design.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Picciano (2006) describes blended learning as a combination of online with face-toface learning activities integrated in a planned, pedagogically valuable way, where a
portion of the traditional classroom time is replaced by online activities. Blended learning
has been found to increase student understanding, interaction, and involvement in the
learning process if teachers ensure that both the online and face-to-face components follow
good pedagogical practices (Young, 2002; Martyn, 2003; Lin, 2007).
The use of blended instruction is growing in all types of higher education institutions
(Young, 2002; Kim & Bonk, 2006) as well as in K-12 classrooms (Watson, 2008). In a
meta-analysis of effectiveness studies of face-to-face, online, and blended models of
learning, the U.S. Department of Education reported that students in online learning
environments performed modestly better than those learning the same material in faceto-face situations, and blended instruction gave students a larger advantage relative to
pure online or face-to-face approaches (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Many teachers find blended instruction to be the best of both worlds, offering the
convenience and flexibility of online courses but still keeping the traditional face-to-face,
faculty-to-student interaction while in the classroom (Dziuban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004).
An essential part of hybrid learning is finding the right blend of what goes online and what
is taught face-to-face (Kaleta, Skibba, & Joosten, 2007). Appropriate integration of online
and face-to-face learning is essential to creating environments that are highly conducive
to student learning (Vaughan, 2007). Students were dissatisfied with hybrid instruction if
they did not see the relationship between the face-to-face and the online components
(Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta, 2002) or if they felt the online components just increased
the course workload (Kaleta, Skibba, & Joosten, 2007).

International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning

There are two common types of blends used by teachers. In one type of blend course
content is taught in a traditional way during class time, and students extend their knowledge
online through critical thinking activities and discussions (Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta,
2002). Another blend requires students prior to the face-to-face sessions to complete
activities online in order to ensure that everyone shares a common information base. Then
during class time, the content is supplemented and enriched with application and problem
solving activities (Smart & Cappel, 2006). The face-to-face time can be used to learn the
material at a deeper level as well as connect the content to broader topics (Collopy &
Arnold, 2009). Requiring students to learn basic content outside of class using technology
tools, which frees class time for other learning activities, is referred to as flipping
instruction. Flipping, first used by Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams at Woodland Park
High School in Colorado, USA (Fulton, 2012), is being used more frequently in both
college and in K-12 classrooms (Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Goodwin & Miller, 2013). The
flipped learning model provides a way for teachers to shift from teacher-driven
instruction to student-centered learning (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight, & Arfstrom,
2013; Talbert, 2012). Instructional technology has enabled teachers to provide materials
and resources that personalize instruction, making learning more active and ubiquitous
and promoting students ability to learn content online (Woolf, 2010).
Since flipped instruction is a new way of teaching and learning, it requires adjustment
for both educators and students. Teachers need to be more aware of the content they are
teaching, and the classroom environment needs to be more flexible allowing students
more choice in when and where they learn (Bennett, 2013). Flipped instruction requires
educators to cater to a variety of learning styles, shifting their focus to the learner. Teachers
must decide on what content can be learned independently, use more active learning
techniques, and reflect on the effects of their instructional approach, making necessary
modifications to promote learning (Hamden, McKnight, McKnight, & Arfstrom, 2013;
Kenney & Newcombe, 2013). According to Fulton (2012), flipped classrooms support the
research on effective learning, allowing teachers to use classroom time in ways that are
more creative. Using educational technology is appropriate for 21st century learning
where students will use technology throughout all aspects of their lives and will expect to
be able to access information anytime, anywhere. Students must take a more active
approach and more self-responsibility for their own learning (Talbert, 2012). According to
Goodwin and Miller (2013), flipping is changing the entire paradigm of teaching from
viewing teachers as imparters of knowledge to viewing teachers as coaches, guiding
students in the learning process.
A strong scientific research base supporting flipped classrooms is still accumulating
(Goodwin & Miller, 2013). Most studies, so far, have been positive, indicating that both
teachers and students are seeing the benefits of this new instructional approach, especially
in fostering student-centered learning. In their review of the research on flipped instruction
in higher education, Hamden, McKnight, McKnight, and Arfstrom (2013) found the
technique promoted increased and more in-depth content coverage, more interactive
classrooms and resulted in better test scores than traditional delivery approaches. Riddick
(reported in Herreid & Schiller, 2013) found that students in a flipped college, prepreparatory, chemistry course had higher final exam scores and better overall success than
students in traditional sections of the course.
Teachers using the approach are reporting increased levels of student achievement,
interest, and engagement. Lage, Platt, and Treglia (2000) found that students in an
introductory economics course preferred inverted classrooms, and the instructors reported
that students appeared more motivated and more comfortable asking questions in class.
The inverted classroom can incorporate a wide variety of learning styles and allows more
one-on-one interaction with students without sacrificing the coverage of course material.

Flipping Instruction in an Undergraduate Education Course

Davies, Dean, and Ball (2013) compared a flipped approach to a traditional approach
in an introductory college-level information systems spreadsheet course. They found
student perceptions of the flipped approach were slightly but not significantly more
favorable than the regular approach. An advantage of the flipped approach was that it
allowed for individual pacing through the material. Finding the right pace for delivering
material to students of various technology backgrounds can often be a challenge for
instructors in a traditional classroom format. The researchers also were surprised to find
that motivating students to recognize the importance of studying the material was not as
difficult as they expected it would be in a flipped format.
Strayer (2012) did a comparative study of two college-level, introductory statistics
courses, one using a traditional approach, and one using a flipped delivery method. He
found that students in the flipped classroom were more open than the students in the
traditional class to learning environments that were innovative and cooperative. However,
they were not as satisfied with how the approach oriented them to the learning tasks. Strayer
assumed that, with time, students would adjust to the approach and see connections
between the online and in-class learning activities. He emphasized the importance of
providing support to help students and teachers monitor learning and see the relationship
between the online and face-to-face activities. Other studies report that a major barrier to
successful online learning is the lack of student self-discipline and self-regulatory learning
behaviors (Allen & Seaman, 2006; Barnard, Paton, & Lan, 2008).
Research studies on flipped instruction are promising, but studies that are more
scientific are needed (Goodwin & Miller, 2013). The instructor decided to conduct her own
action research, and collected data on student perceptions of the instructional approach
across the eight semesters of implementation and used these findings to make course
improvements. How this approach fulfilled the goals of the instructor to increase student
ownership and active involvement in the learning process will be examined.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The studys findings presented in this article focus on answering the following research
questions that reflect the instructors objectives for switching to a blended, flipped format:
1. Did the online assignments and quizzes help to increase student preparation for the
face-to-face classroom activities and for the course exams? Did the face-to-face
activities help prepare students for the course exams?
2. Did the blended, flipped approach increase student participation during the faceto-face class sessions?
3. Did the blended, flipped approach increase student engagement and interest in the
course material?
4. Did the face-to-face activities provide students with a chance to extend their
knowledge on the topics? Did the students see the relationship between the online
assignments and face-to-face activities?
5. Did blended, flipped approach contribute to student learning of the course
material?
6. Did the approach help students manage their learning of the course material more
effectively?
7. Were there any strong correlations between the student responses to contribution
to learning and their responses to preparation, participation, engagement,
knowledge extension, and management of learning?
8. What were some of the barriers to successful learning using the flipped method?

International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
One hundred seventeen students (50% males and 50% females) taking the instructors
undergraduate educational psychology course during the two most recent semesters
participated in the study. The majority of the students were undergraduate education majors
in their sophomore or junior year that had never taken a blended or distance course. Most
of the students considered themselves at least somewhat proficient in their level of
technology expertise and expected to get an A or B in the course.
INSTRUMENTS
The survey consisted of a five-point Likert scale with the following options: strongly
disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree. The students also used a checklist to
indicate what the barriers were to the success of their blended learning experience.
PROCEDURES
The instructor began using a blended, flipped instructional approach in her educational
psychology course during the spring 2010 semester. This course is part of the professional
education core and is often the first course that students take in education. The majority of
students that take the course are education majors in their sophomore year. There are about
the same number of males and females that take the course.
During this first semester of implementation, the instructor decided to start small and
pilot-test a flipped, blended approach during one, three-week unit, in one section of the
course. The three-week unit selected covered the topic of cognitive development. Fifty-six
students filled out a survey measuring their perceptions of the method and the majority
recommended that the instructor continue using it. Based on the positive survey feedback,
the instructor expanded the approach to four out of the five units in the course and used it
in all four of her sections. The instructor decided to keep the first unit of the course faceto-face to allow both the students and the teacher to get to know each other and to begin to
build a learning community.
For the online assignments, students were required to read the textbook, listen to
narrated PowerPoint lectures, view video clips, and read relevant articles. They could use
class time to asynchronously do the assignment and then take the online quiz that was due
the night before the face-to-face class session. The online quiz tested the students on the
material they learned during the online assignment and held them accountable for doing
the online assignment and being prepared for the in-class activities. The online quiz also
allowed the instructor to check students understanding of the material and determine what
needed to be reviewed during class. The quiz gave the students the opportunity to see which
areas needed more careful study.
The in-class activities reinforced and extended the information the students learned
online, and gave them opportunities to apply the information and engage in higher-order
thinking skills. Analyzing classroom videos and case studies, solving classroom scenarios,
researching topics, creating concept maps and Venn diagrams, and discussing controversial
educational issues were some of the different types of activities used in class.
The instructor surveyed students at the end of each of the semesters that she has been
using the approach. Participation in the survey was voluntary. Students were asked respond
thoughtfully and truthfully to the questions and that responses would be anonymous. The
instructor used the student feedback from these surveys refine to continually refine the

Flipping Instruction in an Undergraduate Education Course

online assignments and face-to-face activities and to measure the effectiveness of the
approach.
Survey results from the last two semesters of implementation (spring and fall 2013)
were used to address the instructors action research questions. These semesters were
selected because, by this time in the adoption process, the instructor was experienced in
using the approach, and had made several course refinements based on the student feedback
from the previous semesters. In addition to the survey results, test scores were used to
measure how the approach affected student learning of the course material. During the
spring 2012 semester, the instructor did not use the blended, flipped approach in one of her
four class sections. Comparisons of the test scores on the three course exams between the
three sections that were flipped and the one section that was taught in a traditional way
were used to measure the effects of the approach on test performance.
RESULTS
This section presents the data aggregated across these two most recent semesters of
implementation for each of the research questions.
PREPARATION
Did the online assignments and quizzes help to increase student preparation for the
face-to-face classroom activities and for the course exams?
Did the face-to-face activities help prepare the students for the course exams?
As can be seen in Table 1, the majority of the students agreed or strongly agreed that
the online assignments and quizzes helped to prepare them for the in-class activities and
for the course exams. The face-to-face activities were even more beneficial than the online
assignments or quizzes for exam preparation.
Table 1. Student survey responses for preparation
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree
Agree
n (%)
n (%)
I felt more prepared for the
44
41
face-to-face sessions after doing
(38%)
(35%)
the online assignments.
The online quizzes helped to
prepare me for the face-to-face
activities.
The online assignments helped
to prepare me for the exams.
The online quizzes helped to
prepare me for the exams.
The face-to-face activities
helped to prepare me for the
exams.

Neutral

Disagree

n (%)
19
(16%)

n (%)
10
(8%)

Strongly
Disagree
n (%)
3
(3%)

28
(24%)

42
(36%)

24
(21%)

17
(15%)

5
(4%)

29
(25%)
28
(24%)
37
(32%)

49
(42%)
52
(45%)
51
(44%)

22
(19%)
11
(10%)
19
(16%)

14
(12%)
18
(16%)
9
(8%)

2
(2%)
6
(5%)
1
(1%)

CLASS PARTICIPATION
Did the blended, flipped approach increase student participation during the face-toface class sessions?

International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning

The percentages in Table 2 reveal that most students felt their participation in class was
helped by the blended, flipped approach. However, these percentages were not quite as
high as the percentages for preparation, and a larger percentage of students were neutral
indicating that increasing class participation was not as strong an outcome of the approach
as increasing students preparation for class sessions and exams.
Table 2. Student survey responses for participation
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree
n (%)
My participation in class increased as
21
a result of doing the online activities.
(18%)
I felt more comfortable expressing
27
myself in class after doing the online
(23.5%)
activities/assignments.

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

n (%)
43
(37%)
43
(37%)

n (%)
25
(21%)
27
(23.5%)

n (%)
22
(19%)
16
(14%)

Strongly
Disagree
n (%)
6
(5%)
2
(2%)

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Did the blended, flipped approach increase student engagement and interest in the
course material?
Fifty-percent (50%) of the students answered, either strongly agree or agree when
asked if they felt more engaged and interested in the course material as a result of using
the flipped approach (see Table 3). Approximately a quarter of the students (26%) were
neutral. This outcome was also not as strong as preparation.
Table 3. Student survey responses for engagement
Survey Question
I felt more engaged and
interested in the course
material with the blended
approach.

Strongly
Agree
n (%)
23
(20%)

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

n (%)
35
(30%)

n (%)
30
(26%)

n (%)
17
(15%)

Strongly
Disagree
n (%)
11
(9%)

KNOWLEDGE EXTENSION
Did the face-to-face activities provide students with a chance to extend their knowledge
on the topics?
Did the students see the relationship between the online assignments and face-to-face
activities?
As displayed in Table 4, over 80% of the students either strongly agreed or agreed that
the face-to-face sessions provided them with the chance to extend their knowledge about
the topics covered and they were able to see the relationship between the content that they
learned online and the in-class activities that supported and extended the content. As the
research suggests, using class time to extend knowledge and ensuring that there is a strong
relationship between online and classroom activities are essential elements for effective
blended, flipped instruction (Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta, 2002; Fulton, 2012). These

Flipping Instruction in an Undergraduate Education Course

survey results indicate that the instructor was able to incorporate these elements into the
courses design. Requiring students to come to class already knowing basic content enabled
the instructor to incorporate higher-order thinking activities into the face-to-face sessions
rather than concentrating on lectures. These activities were also more effective because
students had already been exposed to the content upon which the activities were built. As
mentioned previously, a large percentage of the students (76%) reported that these face-toface activities were helpful in preparing them for the course exams.
Table 4. Student survey responses for knowledge extension
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree
Agree
n (%)
n (%)
The face-to-face sessions
42
54
provided a chance for me to
(36%)
(47%)
extend my knowledge about the
topics.
I could see the relationship
39
57
between the online assignments
(33%)
(49%)
and the face-to-face activities.

Neutral

Disagree

n (%)
13
(11%)

n (%)
6
(5%)

Strongly
Disagree
n (%)
1
(1%)

14
(12%)

5
(4%)

2
(2%)

LEARNING AND MANAGEMENT OF COURSE MATERIAL

Did blended, flipped approach contribute to student learning of the course material?
Did the approach help students manage their learning of the course material more
effectively?
Were there any strong correlations between the student responses to contribution to
learning and their responses to preparation, participation, engagement, knowledge
extension, and management of learning?
As Table 5 shows, the majority of the students agreed that the blended, flipped
approach contributed to their learning. More students (39%) strongly agreed that the faceto-face activities contributed to their learning in comparison to the online activities (25%),
but when the strongly agreed and agreed responses were combined, these differences
disappeared and about the same percentage of students reported that both the online and
face-to-face portions of the course were important for their learning.
Table 5. Student survey responses for learning of course material
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree
Agree
n (%)
n (%)
The online activities contributed to my
29
62
learning.
(25%)
(53%)
The face-to-face activities contributed to
45
47
my learning.
(39%)
(40%)
Overall, the blended approach contributed
29
51
to my learning.
(25%)
(44%)
The blended approach helped me to
27
58
manage the coursework more effectively,
(23%)
(50%)
enabling me to keep up with the course
reading and learning the course material.

Neutral

Disagree

n (%)
14
(12%)
17
(15%)
23
(20%)
16
(14%)

n (%)
9
(8%)
7
(6%)
9
(8%)
11
(9%)

Strongly
Disagree
n (%)
3
(3%)
1
(1%)
5
(4%)
5
(4%)

International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning

In addition to the survey results, test scores showed that the blended, flipped approach
contributed to learning the course material. During the spring 2012 semester, the instructor
used a traditional, face-to-face format to teach one section of the course. This section only
met once a week and would not be conducive to a blended format. The other three sections
of the course met twice a week and were taught using a blended, flipped approach. The
demographics of the students in both the traditional and flipped sections were similar,
providing the opportunity to compare the exam scores between the two different
instructional methods. Looking at the first of the three exams, the traditional section had a
higher average score than (N=17; M= 57.06) the flipped sections (N=69; M=55.96). For
exam 2 the flipped sections had a higher average score (M=78.13) than the traditional
section (M=71.65). This was also the case for exam 3 (M=54.88 for flipped; M=50.41 for
traditional). These findings indicate that as the students became more experienced in using
the blended approach, they were able to learn the material, and, on average, do as well or
better than the traditional section on exams. Both the student responses on the survey and
the exam results support other research studies that show the flipped approach to be an
effective way for students to learn course material.
Almost three quarters (73%) of the students agreed that the blended delivery format
helped them manage their learning of the course material better by requiring them to keep
up-to-date with readings and assignments (see Table 5). Management of course material
had the strongest correlation (r=.735) with contribution to learning, followed by
preparation for class (r=.571). Other course objectives such as participation in class,
engagement in material, and extension of knowledge were not as strongly correlated. These
results indicate that the strongest outcome of the blended format was promoting preparation
for classes and, in turn, helping students to more effectively manage the coursework and
learn the material.
BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL LEARNING
What were some of the barriers to successful learning using the flipped method?
Table 6 (see next page) lists the barriers to learning encountered by the students when
using the blended, flipped approach. The two barriers mentioned by the majority and
largest percentage of students were managing their time effectively (52%) and selfdiscipline or taking responsibility for their own learning (52%). Adapting to a new style of
learning (48%) and having less opportunity to interact with the teacher (47%) were also
mentioned as barriers for many of the students. These results are consistent with other
research findings on the types of obstacles that can block student success when using this
new approach to learning (Allen & Seaman, 2006; Barnard, Paton, & Lan, 2008; Talbert,
2012). Even though students realized that one of the major ways that the blended approach
contributed to their learning was through preparation and management of coursework, they
found this to be a difficult skill to acquire and implement.
Some very interesting lessons were learned from the results of the eight semesters of
action research. The instructor found that starting with a small pilot-test during the first
semester and then using action research to expand and guide the evolution of the course
were critical elements contributing to the overall success of the blended, flipped method
(Kenney & Newcombe, 2013). Positive survey feedback and test scores indicate that course
refinements are improving the effectiveness of the approach and that the flipped strategy
is fulfilling the instructors objectives. Barriers to learning provided valuable information
on the types of support needed by students to be successful learners using this new type of
instructional format. How the instructor interpreted these results and used them to improve
her course is further discussed in the next session.

Flipping Instruction in an Undergraduate Education Course

10

Table 6. Student survey responses for barriers to learning

Barrier
Number of Responses
n (%)
Time management skills
57
(52%)
Self-discipline/responsibility for learning
57
(52%)
New style of learning
52
(48%)
Less opportunity to interact with the teacher
51
(47%)
Less opportunity to interact with other students
Technology issues
Understanding the material/unable to get
immediate feedback

29
(27%)
28
(26%)
26
(24%)

DISCUSSION
LESSONS LEARNED
In general, the action research results supported the use of the blended, flipped learning
approach. The instructors objectives for using the approach - to increase preparation,
participation, engagement, and learning - were met. These results support previous research
on flipped learning (Hamden, McKnight, McKnight, & Arfstrom, 2013). When asked what
they liked best about the approach, students particularly liked the ability to learn the
material at their own pace and the convenience of the approach, which also supports the
findings from other studies (Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013).
However, there were barriers that the instructor encountered. The major barriers
reported by students in the surveys were self-discipline, time management, and adapting to
a new style of learning. It took students awhile to become comfortable with the approach,
and to be responsible for their own learning. Even though the students indicated that, the
approach contributed to their learning, in the latest survey only 38% preferred learning the
course material online and 34% were neutral. Forty six percent (46%) preferred traditional
approaches (38% were neutral). Students did not find the approach to be more difficult than
traditional formats, but about half of the students indicated that blended formats required
more work/time than traditional face-to-face formats. These findings reflect some of the
same issues that were found in other research studies (Allen & Seaman, 2006; Barnard,
Paton, & Lan, 2008; Strayer, 2012).
Below is a summary of some key lessons that the instructor learned from her
experiences with flipping. Flipped methods of instruction can be effective if certain factors
are taken into consideration:
Do not assume that students know how to use technology for learning or that they
are accustomed to taking an active approach to learning. Be prepared to provide
support in the areas of time management and self-directed learning.
Explain to students why you are using the flipped method and how it will benefit
their learning. Some students may think that the instructor is just trying to get out

International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning

11

of teaching the content. They need to understand that actively learning the content
online is better than passively listening to lectures in class.
Ensure that students see the relationships between the content they have learned
online and the activities provided during class. They need to see the importance of
learning the content before coming to class so they can engage in the face-to-face
sessions that will allow them to clarify, reinforce, extend, and apply the content,
and learn it at a deeper level. When students are first exposed to information in a
lecture, they often are not even aware of what they understand and what is
confusing. By learning the information ahead of time, they are more likely to know
what questions to ask the instructor during class.
Use action research to measure what works and what does not and use the findings
to refine the course design to promote active learning. Student perceptions of
whether the blended, flipped format contributed to their learning improved over
the eight semesters of implementation. During the most recent semester, 77% of
the students either strongly agreed or agreed that the blended approach contributed
to their learning compared to only 55% of the students during the first semester of
implementation. This increase can be attributed to the course modifications made
by the instructor based on the action research results. However, because a large
percentage of students still indicated that, they prefer traditional approaches; more
course modifications may need to be made. The instructor is currently focusing her
research on examining the types of learning supports that will help students adapt
to this new, more student-directed instructional approach that requires selfregulated learning skills.
CONCLUSION
The action research data collected over the eight semesters of implementation provided
valuable feedback from students to make the course more effective. The data also further
supports the accumulating research that shows the success of flipped classrooms in
promoting student engagement, participation, and learning. In addition to student surveys,
future research studies could include other ways to measure the impact of flipped learning.
Observing and recording student behaviors in the classroom, such as the amount of
participation in the face-to-face activities or the number of times students access
classroom materials and resources on the lesson webpage could be measured. Comparing
student scores on exams and final course grades in traditional versus flipped instructional
formats would be ways to measure the effects of blended learning on the acquisition and
retention of course content.
A significant finding of this study was the importance for students to buy in to the
approach to make it successful. Flipped instruction must be designed so students can easily
see its benefits. Instructors should provide the support that students will need to change
their traditional, teacher-directed view of learning to an active, student-directed
perspective. Time management and self-responsibility for learning may not come easily
for all students, and some students will need more scaffolding from the instructor.
Developing online assignments that are engaging and allow for active learning, and faceto-face sessions that build on these online assignments are crucial for the success of a
flipped approach. A side benefit of flipped classrooms is that it gives students the
opportunity to experience effective uses of technology for learning. This is especially
important for the preparation of pre-service teachers who will be required to use
educational technology in their own future classrooms.

Flipping Instruction in an Undergraduate Education Course

12

REFERENCES
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United
States.
Needham, MA: Sloan C.
Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned from the Hybrid Course
Project. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6),
http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham2.htm.
Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online self-regulatory learning behaviors as a
mediator in the relationship between online course perceptions and achievement.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Retrieved
September 4, 2013 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/ view/516
/1035.
Bennett, B. (2013). Flipped classrooms: You keep using that word. Retrieved April 9,
2013 from http://smartblogs.com/education/2013/04/05/flipped-classrooms-you-keepusing-that-word/.
Collopy, R. M. B., & Arnold, J.M. (2009). To blend or not to blend: Online and blended
learning environments in undergraduate teacher education. Issues in Teacher
Education, 18(2), 85-101.
Davies, R. S., Dean, D.L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional
technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course.
Education Tech Research Dev, 61, 563-580, DOI10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6.
Dziuban, C.D., Hartman, J.L., & Moskal, P.D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE
Research Bulletin, 7, 1-12.
Fulton, K. (2012). 10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 20-24.
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in.
Educational Leadership, 70(6), 78-80.
Hamden, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. (2013). The flipped learning
model: A white paper based on the literature review titled a review of flipped learning.
Retrieved October 2, 2013 from http://www.flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/
VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/WhitePaper_FlippedLearning.pdf.
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N.A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62-66.
Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten T. (2007). Discovering, designing and delivering hybrid
courses. In Picciano, A. and Dziuban, C. (Eds.), Blended learning: Research
perspectives, Sloan Center for Online Education (SCOLE), Olin and Babson
Colleges, 111-143.
Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2013). The evolution of a blended learning instructional
approach in an undergraduate education course: Findings from an action research
study. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference.
Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C.J. (2006), The future of online teaching and learning in higher
education: The survey says. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 4, 22-30.
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.
Lin, H. (2007). Blending online components into traditional instruction: A case of using
technologies to support good practices in pre-service teacher education. Journal of
Instructional Delivery Systems, 21(1), 7-16.
Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 1,
18-23.

International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning

13

Parsons, R. D., & Brown, K. S. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action
researcher. Belmont CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Picciano, A. G. (2006). Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3), 95-102.
Smart, K., & Cappel, J. (2006). Students perceptions of online learning: A comparative
study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201-219.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation,
innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193.
Talbert, R. (2012). Inverted classroom. Colleagues, 9(1), Article 7.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International
Journal on E-Learning, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id
=159594390.
Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face
education. VA: North American Council for Online Learning.
Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for educational technology. Retrieved September 29,
2013 from http://www.coe.uga.edu/itt/files/2010/12/educ-tech-roadmap-nsf.pdf.
Young, J. R. (2002). Hybrid teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and
online instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), 33-34.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Michelle Fisher, Senior Instructional Designer for
Teacher Education for her assistance in designing the course website.

Copyright of International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning is the property of

Society of International Chinese in Educational Technology (SICET) and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.