1,095
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Researchers show that students perform equally well in flipped and nonflipped classrooms if active-learning activities are held constant, suggesting that active learning is the key moderator of success.

          Abstract

          The “flipped classroom” is a learning model in which content attainment is shifted forward to outside of class, then followed by instructor-facilitated concept application activities in class. Current studies on the flipped model are limited. Our goal was to provide quantitative and controlled data about the effectiveness of this model. Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared an active nonflipped classroom with an active flipped classroom, both using the 5-E learning cycle, in an effort to vary only the role of the instructor and control for as many of the other potentially influential variables as possible. Results showed that both low-level and deep conceptual learning were equivalent between the conditions. Attitudinal data revealed equal student satisfaction with the course. Interestingly, both treatments ranked their contact time with the instructor as more influential to their learning than what they did at home. We conclude that the flipped classroom does not result in higher learning gains or better attitudes compared with the nonflipped classroom when both utilize an active-learning, constructivist approach and propose that learning gains in either condition are most likely a result of the active-learning style of instruction rather than the order in which the instructor participated in the learning process.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.

          To test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and course performance, we metaanalyzed 225 studies that reported data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses under traditional lecturing versus active learning. The effect sizes indicate that on average, student performance on examinations and concept inventories increased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies), and that the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing (n = 67 studies). These results indicate that average examination scores improved by about 6% in active learning sections, and that students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that both results hold across the STEM disciplines, that active learning increases scores on concept inventories more than on course examinations, and that active learning appears effective across all class sizes--although the greatest effects are in small (n ≤ 50) classes. Trim and fill analyses and fail-safe n calculations suggest that the results are not due to publication bias. The results also appear robust to variation in the methodological rigor of the included studies, based on the quality of controls over student quality and instructor identity. This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. The results raise questions about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research studies, and support active learning as the preferred, empirically validated teaching practice in regular classrooms.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Monitoring Editor
                Journal
                CBE Life Sci Educ
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE Life Sciences Education
                American Society for Cell Biology
                1931-7913
                1931-7913
                02 March 2015
                : 14
                : 1
                : ar5
                Affiliations
                [1]*Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602;
                [2] Health School, Universidade Potiguar, Lagoa Nova–Natal, Rio Grande do Norte 59056-000, Brazil
                Author notes
                ‡Address correspondence to: Jamie L. Jensen ( jamie.jensen@ 123456byu.edu ).
                Article
                CBE-14-08-0129
                10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129
                4353080
                25699543
                b13c3ced-3fb1-4655-9995-03d75710253a
                © 2015 J. L. Jensen et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2015 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

                “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society of Cell Biology.

                History
                : 20 August 2014
                : 26 September 2014
                : 27 September 2014
                Categories
                Articles
                Custom metadata
                March 2, 2015

                Education
                Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article