– by Jon Bergmann –

Overview

The lecture is not dead in Higher Education, says Inside Higher Ed.  A study examined teaching methods in higher ed STEM classes and found that 55% of classrooms were “conventional lecture,” 27% were mostly lecture-based, and only 18% of classes could be classified as emphasizing “a student-centered style heavy on group work and discussions.”

And yet the research is showing that active learning is revolutionary and specifically Flipped Learning as a way to get to active learning. This month I reviewed 63 research papers and articles regarding Flipped Learning. Virtually all of the studies show the positive effects of Flipped Learning. However, one study that got a lot of press said there were no gains on test scores, but upon closer read showed many other positive aspects to Flipped Learning.

There was also a clear demarcation of studies utilizing Flipped Learning 1.0 vs Flipped Learning 3.0. So many of the studies are still asking the question: Does Flipped Learning work in my domain/niche? The good news is that all of this month’s 63 studies showed positive effects. But several studies are pushing the boundaries by assuming Flipped Learning works and then asking questions like how do we enhance the group space. One study uses Assassin’s Creed, a popular game to see if it enhances Flipped Learning. Another looked at how graphic organizers enhance the individual space. And yet another compared a variety of e-learning options and concluded that Flipped Learning was the most viable option.

Finally, a  statement in the student newspaper at Ohio State University grabbed my attention:

“The ‘flipped classroom’ is an effective learning approach when used correctly…This leads to flipped classes being either fantastic or terrible; a Broadway play or a three-hour, experimental musical by high school students.”

This quote highlights the importance of implementing Flipped Learning with fidelity and the need for practitioners to get well trained before they embark on flipping their classrooms.

Top 10  Flipped Learning 3.0 Research 

 Flipped Learning 1.0 Research 

Below is a partial listing of other studies done this month on Flipped Learning.  The majority of them represent Flipped Learning 1.0 research where the focus is to study if Flipped Learning works in a specific content area or domain.  All but one of the studies showed increases either in student scores, engagement, or satisfaction.

• A study of Immunology students from Lanzhou University (China) compared lecture-based classes to an Application Based Flipped Class (APP-FC). They determined that the APP-FC increased student motivation, self-direction, problem solving, and was preferable to the medical students.
• Chinese professors Chien-Yuan Su and Cheng-Huan Chen compared the questioning abilities and motivation of students in flipped classes versus traditional classes and found both factors increased in the flipped classes.
• Christine Julien of the University of Texas at Austin taught a course on the Internet of Things and reported how it engaged her students in a significant way. The interesting thing about this article is how it just casually mentions that the class is being taught using the flipped classroom approach and then goes on to describe how the class was active and engaging for all students.
• Gareth Bramley, University of Sheffield Law professor studied if Flipped Learning works in  a “Commercial Law-Sale of Goods Course and found that students generally prefer the model for many reasons including the ability to pause and rewind, the freedom to learn at their own pace, and the ability to interact with the content before the class.
• Yasir Fadol, Husam Aldamen, and Shahriar Saadullah compared performance and perception of students in a management course at a business school in the Middle East. One hundred and twenty two students completed an Introduction to Management course, which was divided into three different delivery modes, namely traditional, online and flipped. The results of the study reveal several interesting findings. Both the online and flipped sections performed better than the traditional one, and the flipped section performed better than the online one. Absenteeism was higher in the traditional mode compared to the flipped mode.
• Several Yale professors have been flipping their courses, and though not studied in a rigorous way, all interviewed saw increases in student engagement, scores, and how it makes classes more active.
• A study out of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health found that the Flipped Classroom Model does not improve grades in a health science course. However, they saw other positive results as students, in general, preferred the Flipped Class Model.
• A paper by B D Prasetyo, N Suprapto, and  R N Pudyastomo studied if Flipped Learning works in a secondary physics class, and they reported increased test scores.
• Melody Bergstresser completed her doctoral dissertation where she asked if Flipped Learning helped students with dyslexia. She found no difference between those in a traditional class versus those in a flipped classroom.
• Physics professors Jeffrey Lloyd L.Cagande and Richard R. Jugar from the Philippines studied the effects of student motivation and understanding and found that the flipped classroom may enhance students’ learning of kinematics graphs by improving their level of understanding but was shown to have no effect on their motivation.
• Medical professors at School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University compared traditional learning and Flipped Learning with 2nd-year medical students and found that students in the flipped classrooms had higher motivation, more self-directed skills, problem-solving abilities, and saw increased scores on exams.
• Francisco Hinojo Lucena and others looked at how Flipped Learning works in a university physical education course and found that [Flipped Classrooms] allows improving students’ achievement and competence development, providing critical, significant, ubiquitous, transformational and especially motivating experiences.
• A study reported in the International Journal of Instruction compared engagement of students in a traditional course to those in a flipped course and…it was seen that the classroom engagement levels of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group.
• A study by Jia Yang and other research from the University of Dayton studied the effects of Flipped Learning on the teaching of Chinese. The students gave higher average ratings on three aspects of their learning experience: level of required self-directedness, amount of practice in class, and stimulation of interest in the subject.
• A study by H L Radunovich looked at the viewing habits of 77 students in a higher education flipped class and determined that there were fewer lecture views than anticipated and that the view times were short.  
• Nuchinda Suwapaet from Mahasarakham University Kamrieng, Thailand, compared two groups of engineering students. One taught traditionally and the other taught in a flipped manner. The failure rate dropped from 17% to 6% in the flipped group and students in the flipped group reported that the method promoted self-study outside of the class and prepared them for lifelong learning.
• A study done out of Spain looked at how Flipped Learning impacted students who were developing software. They found Flipped Learning to be a good active methodology to involve students, promote more practical learning and develop key skills for future software engineers.
• A small study out of Germany of the effect of Flipped Learning on English Language tutoring shows promising results to applying Flipped Learning to language tutoring.