Instructional Gymnastics 101 What I Lear
Twitter: @mmcr
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
Please do not cite without author’s permission
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.
T HE H ISTORY OF THE F LIPPED C LASSROOM
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 traditional 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 technologist and math teacher, Karl Fisch (Makice 2012). Referring to the “Fisch flip,” Pink’s use 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 technologist and math teacher, Karl Fisch (Makice 2012). Referring to the “Fisch flip,” Pink’s use
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 (Edosomwan 2011). While they were not the first social media tools available, they did develop 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 (Edosomwan 2011). While they were not the first social media tools available, they did develop
D EFINING THE F LIPPED C LASSROOM
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 to read a novel on their own… And law professors have long used the Socratic method in large 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 to read a novel on their own… And law professors have long used the Socratic method in large
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 and other projects. If the flipped classroom means transposing things and having students com- 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 and other projects. If the flipped classroom means transposing things and having students com-
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 “pillars” of flipped learning: flexible environments that allow students to choose when and where 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 “pillars” of flipped learning: flexible environments that allow students to choose when and where
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 with them or need to be “low stakes” in terms of their final grade. Similar information can also 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 with them or need to be “low stakes” in terms of their final grade. Similar information can also
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 increasing 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 differences can be seen in two caveats.
First, note that I used the word “primarily” to describe the placement of ingredients with- in the learning process. This qualification applies across the board. Active learning 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 instruction at those few topics or points of confusion that learners are struggling with the most.
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
1 At least one response from a student in my courses, reported later in this paper, show this bias.
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 tech- niques) emphasize the importance of content learned outside of the classroom while simultane- 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 tech- niques) emphasize the importance of content learned outside of the classroom while simultane-
J USTIFYING THE F LIPPED C LASSROOM
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 course content. Removing most direct instruction from the classroom helps by offering additional First, the flipped classroom makes deliberate choices to increase student engagement with course content. Removing most direct instruction from the classroom helps by offering additional
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 take greater ownership of the learning process. This concept appears in the literature variously as The final way that flipped instruction centers on students is by directly requiring them to take greater ownership of the learning process. This concept appears in the literature variously as
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 “the end goal of all higher education” (Talbert 2014).
A N E XPERIMENT IN F LIPPING
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 portion 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 record- ing them and offering them on a course podcast (c.f. Roberts 2008).
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 evolved over time, gradually adopting a design philosophy known as “Presentation Zen.” This 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 evolved over time, gradually adopting a design philosophy known as “Presentation Zen.” This
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.
2 Examples of these video styles can be found at the website that accompanies this paper: http://bit.ly/gymnastics14
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.
E VALUATING THE F LIPPED C LASSROOM
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 downtown and there are several satellite campuses throughout the state. For winter of 2014,
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 department 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 students 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 de 3 - sire to take the course, by most measures these three sections appear to be standard intro to American government courses. Please see Table 2 and Figure 1 for details.
3 I refer to this elsewhere in the paper as the “major-heavy” course for purposes of identification.
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.”
4 Eighty-five percent and 86% of students in -03, F12 and -06, F12 reported “yes” respectively. Seventy- seven percent of students in -01, W13 did so.
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 classroom.” As Figure 6 shows, results are mixed. In none of the sections did the two top cate- 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 classroom.” As Figure 6 shows, results are mixed. In none of the sections did the two top cate-
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
5 It should be noted that there are, as of yet, no definitive studies as to whether the flipped classroom actu - ally improves student learning—at least as traditionally measured in course grades. On the one hand,
creating an effective research design with adequate controls is fairly difficult. On the other hand, the true benefits of flipped instruction might only appear long past the study period. What little evidence does exist suggests that students in flipped classrooms perform no worse than traditional students, and that the benefits of flipped instruction may accrue more noticeably for certain underperforming students (Fell 2013; Bergmann and Sams 2012).
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
6 It may also be that the use of the word “effectively” was a poor choice, inviting far more student inter - pretation of how class time should be used.
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)
7 There are a number of ways to interpret this. Because of the number of first-year students and the fact that this was a fall course, fewer students had a wealth of experience to compare to. Student perceptions
could also be colored by the somewhat tense environment in that classroom, largely brought about by one extremely outspoken student. While students reported that my half of the semester was less tense than the first half, this still might have affected students’ enjoyment.
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)
Yes. The way the class was taught made you actually think rather than just constantly giving us the answers. It challenged the mind to not just absorb and recite the informa- tion, but to understand it as well. (–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)