Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Open Access
The flipped classroom: for active, effective
and increased learning –especially for low
achievers
Jalal Nouri
Correspondence: jalal@dsv.su.se
Department of Computer and
Systems sciences, Stockholm
University, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Higher education has been pressured to shift towards more flexible, effective, active, and
student-centered teaching strategies that mitigate the limitations of traditional transmittal
models of education. Lately, the flipped classroom model has been suggested to support
this transition. However, research on the use of flipped classroom in higher education is
in its infancy and little is known about student’s perceptions of learning through flipped
classroom. This studyexaminedstudents’perceptions of flipped classroom education in a
last year university course in research methods. A questionnaire was administered
measuring students’(n= 240) perceptions of flipped classroom in general, video as a
learning tool, and Moodle (Learning Management System) as a supporting tool within
the frame of a flipped classroom model. The results revealed that a large majority of the
students had a positive attitude towards flipped classroom, the use of video and Moodle,
and that a positive attitude towards flipped classroom was strongly correlated to
perceptions of increased motivation, engagement, increased learning, and effective
learning. Low achievers significantly reported more positively as compared to high
achievers with regards to attitudes towards the use of video as a learning tool, perceived
increased learning, and perceived more effective learning.
Keywords: Teaching/learning strategies, Distributed learning environments, Improving
classroom teaching, Interactive learning environments, Post- secondary education
Introduction
Teaching at the university level has been performed in a relatively similar manner during
a long historical time and across cultures. As a central pillar, we find the traditional lec-
ture with the professor, or the “sage on the stage”as put by King (1993), transmitting
knowledge to receiving students. Nevertheless, over the past 30 years, university educa-
tion and traditional lectures in particular have been strongly criticized. The main criti-
cism has cast light on the following: students are passive in traditional lectures due to the
lack of mechanisms that ensure intellectual engagement with the material, student’sat-
tention wanes quickly, the pace of the lectures is not adapted to all learners needs and
traditional lectures are not suited for teaching higher order skills such such as application
and analysis (Cashin, 1985; Bonwell, 1996; Huxham, 2005; Young, Robinson, & Alberts,
2009). Consequently, various researchers and educators have advocated forms of lectur-
ing based on an active learning philosophy, some involving novel technology mediated
© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
(2016) 13:33
DOI 10.1186/s41239-016-0032-z
interactions (Beekes, 2006; Rosie, 2000), others without an explicit focus on technology
such as the enhanced lecture of Bonwell (1996). However, despite the comprehensive cri-
tique, the traditional lecture continues to prevail as the predominant didactic strategy in
higher education (Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013).
It is against such a background, and to high extent because of advancements in edu-
cational technology, increasing pressures on higher education have been witnessed
that have spawned a push to flexible blended student-centered learning strategies that
mitigate the limitations of the transmittal model of education (Betihavas, Bridgman,
Kornhaber, & Cross, 2015). Accompanied with the shift to provide student-centered
learning we have seen a surge of researchers and educators advocating flipped class-
room curricula in higher education. The advocacy of the flipped classroom model is
justifiable. Judging by its underlying theory and the conducted empirical studies, the
flipped classroom model appears to address several challenges with traditional ways
of lecturing and pave way for active learning strategies and for using classroom time
forengaginginhigherlevelsofBloom’s taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) such as applica-
tion, analysis, and synthesis.
The flipped classroom model is based on the idea that traditional teaching is inverted
in the sense that what is normally done in class is flipped or switched with that which
is normally done by the students out of class. Thus, instead of students listening to a
lecture in class and then going home to work on a set of assigned problems, they read
course literature and assimilate lecture material through video at home and engage in
teacher-guided problem-solving, analysis and discussions in class. Proponents of flipped
classroom list numerous advantages of inverting teaching and learning in higher educa-
tion according to the flipped classroom model: it allows students to learn in their own
pace, it encourages students to actively engage with lecture material, it frees up actual
class time for more effective, creative and active learning activities, teachers receive ex-
panded opportunities to interact with and to assess students’learning, and students
take control and responsibility for their learning (Gilboy, Heinerichs, & Pazzaglia, 2015;
Betihavas et al., 2015).
Despite that flipped classroom is a rather new phenomenon in higher education,
some empirical research has been conducted. For instance, McLaughlin et al. (2013)
and McLaughlin et al. (2014) analysis of pharmacy students’experiences of flipped
classroom courses revealed that students prefer learning content prior to class and
using class time for applied learning, and that students who learned through a flipped
classroom approach considered themselves more engaged than students attending trad-
itional courses. Similar findings were obtained by Davies, Dean, and Ball (2013) who
compared three different instructional strategies in an information systems spreadsheet
course, and showed that students attending the flipped classroom course also were
more satisfied with the learning environment compared to the other treatment groups.
Several studies report that students enjoy being able to learn in their own pace and that
they prefer flipped classroom over traditional approaches (Butt, 2014; Davies et al.,
2013; Larson & Yamamoto, 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2014; Roach, 2014; Gilboy et al.,
2015). In term of examinations of learning outcomes, Love, Hodge, Grandgenett, and
Swift (2014) demonstrated higher exam grades for students using a flipped classroom
approach as compared to students learning through traditional methods. Hung (2015)
showed similar results for English language learners. Another study by Findlay-
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 2 of 10
Thompson and Mombourquette (2014) comparing traditional teaching methods and
the flipped classroom approach within the same business course showed no significant
differences in academic outcomes.
However, empirical research on the flipped classroom model in higher education, and
more detailed investigations of students’perceptions of its use, is in its infancy and the
need for further research is underlined by many (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Uzunboylu
& Karagozlu, 2015; Betihavas et al., 2015; Gilboy et al., 2015).
Research purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine how students perceive flipped classroom
education in a university research methods course. Three particular aspects were con-
sidered, namely, (a) the student’s general experiences and attitudes of learning through
flipped classroom, (b) the student’s experiences of using video lectures as a medium for
learning, and (c) the student’s experiences of using a Learning Management System
(LMS) in the frame of the flipped classroom model. Further, this study has also consid-
ered differences in experiences and attitudes of low and high achieving students.
Method
This study is based on a quantitative analysis of a closed questionnaire addressing
undergraduate students’perceptions and experience of learning through flipped class-
room in a course preparing students for the bachelor thesis with respect to scientific
methodology and communication. The course was implemented during autumn 2015.
Participants
The participants were undergraduate students (n= 240) at Stockholm University in
Sweden taking the last year course Research methods and communication during au-
tumn semester 2015. All of the students were enrolled in 8 different bachelor level pro-
grams at the department of Computer and Systems Sciences. The students, 76 females
and 164 males, ranged in age from 20 to 43 years, with a mean age of 25.12 years (SD
= 4.09). Out of the 240 students only 23 had a previous experience of flipped classroom.
The number of students passing the course was 218. Table 1 presents an overview of
Table 1 Student demographics and other background questions
Background questions n Percent M SD
Age 240 25.12 4.01
Gender
Women 76 31.7
Men 164 68.3
Low and high achievers
Low 202 84.2
High 38 15.8
Average grade during studies 240 2.91 0.67
Average grade on the course 240 3.29 0.88
I am used to learn using video 240 3.67 1.01
Average grade during studies and Average grade on the course measured on a 6-item scale ranging from F = 0 to A= 5
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 3 of 10
student demographics and background questions. Low and high achievers among the
students were determined by the student’s average grade during their studies. Here high
achievers were defined as having average grades A to B while low achievers were de-
fined as having average grades C to F.
Materials and procedure
Course structure
The course focused on in this study prepares students for the bachelor thesis with
respect to scientific methodology and communication. The learning objectives are
on the one hand to facilitate students understanding of the fundamentals of re-
search strategies, data-collection methods, and analysis methods, and on the other
hand to familiarize students with application of qualitative and quantitative
methods of analysis. Put differently, the course aimed at equipping students with
conceptual knowledge (an understanding of scientific methods), and procedural
knowledge (application of analysis methods and scientific writing). See Fig. 1 for
the underlying pedagogical structure.
The course was divided into three parts with three different examination tasks.
The first part concerned gaining a theoretical understanding of the fundamentals
of research strategies, data-collection methods, and analysis methods. The peda-
gogical structure for this part comprised of independent reading of course litera-
ture. Students reading of the course literature was supported by three longer video
lectures (in average 60 min each), one traditional campus lecture (teacher present-
ing and summarizing the fundamentals of research strategies), and one interactive
flipped classroom lecture in which the teacher presented examples of exam ques-
tions that students answered in real-time by using a digital response system
(Socrative) via their own smart phones, tablets and computers. The response sys-
tem provided an overview of the responses that allowed students to assess their
knowledge and the teacher to provide formative feedback and elaborated explana-
tions when needed. In addition, digital supervision was offered through a learning
management system (Moodle). The examination for this part comprised of a
multiple-choice digital exam in the learning management system.
Fig. 1 Pedagogical structure for students conceptual and procedural learning
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 4 of 10
The second part was a practical qualitative analysis project that students conducted
in groups of two. The task of this project was to use a qualitative analysis method to
analyze qualitative interview data and communicate the results in a report following
scientific standards of qualitative data presentation. During this project the students
were supported by five digital lectures (in average 35 min each), three flipped lectures
on campus, and digital supervision through the learning management system. In the
three flipped lectures on campus students worked with their projects and were scaf-
folded by several teachers that answered questions and provided feedback. When the
teachers identified common misunderstandings or needs among the students, they pro-
vided elaborated explanations to the whole class. The examination of the second part
comprised of a written group report.
The third part of the course was similar to the second part, comprising of a project
with a focus on using quantitative methods to analyze a questionnaire and communi-
cate the results according to scientific standards of quantitative result presentation.
During this project the students were supported by seven video lectures (in average
30 min each), three flipped lectures in class with teachers scaffolding practical work,
and digital supervision in the learning management system. The videos covered the
theoretical fundamentals of descriptive and inferential statistics as well as how different
statistical tests can be performed and interpreted in SPSS. The examination of the third
part comprised of a written group report.
All video lectures made available to the students during the course were produced by
teachers and researchers in a professional video studio at Stockholm University. The
video lectures were specifically tailored for the course.
Survey measures and procedure
A questionnaire was developed consisting of 4 sections with 58 items to measure stu-
dents’perceptions of flipped classroom in general, video as a learning tool, and Moodle
as a supporting system.
Section 1 (General information) consisted of 12 demographic and background items
Section 2 (Flipped Classroom Scale) consisted of 21 items measuring students’
experiences and attitudes of learning through flipped classroom
Section 3 (Video Scale) consisted of 16 items measuring students’experiences of
using video lectures as a medium for learning.
Section 4 (LMS scale) consisted of 9 items measuring students’perceptions of the
utility of Moodle in supporting their learning processes within the frame of flipped
classroom pedagogy.
An exploratory factor analysis with principal component extraction was performed in
an attempt to refine the instrument. After factor analysis, 8 items that did not load on
any factors or highly cross-loaded on multiple factors were removed. Accordingly, the
instrument used for the final analysis consisted of 17 items for the Flipped Classroom
Scale, 13 items for the Video Scale, and 5 items for the LMS Scale. Overall, Cronbach’s
alphas were .78 for the Flipped Classroom Scale, .82 for the Video Scale, and .84 for the
LMS Scale. Students were asked to complete the questionnaire at the end of the course.
The questionnaire was developed and administered through a web tool.
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 5 of 10
Results
Students’general perceptions of flipped classroom
The flipped classroom model proved to be appreciated by many students. Among
the 240 respondents, 180 students expressed a positive attitude to flipped class-
room after the course (75 %). The students most appreciated the use of video
(M = 4.15, SD = 1.10), flexibility and mobility given by the flipped classroom
model (M = 3.95, SD = 1.10), that learning can be done at own pace (M = 3.75,
SD = 0.91), that learning processes are better supported (M = 3.54, SD = 1.13), and
that non-traditional campus activities are meaningful (M = 3.40, SD = 1.13).
In terms of other characteristics of the learning process, to some extent the students
appeared to agree that it is easier and more effective to learn with the flipped classroom
approach (M = 3.17, SD = 1.03) and that they feel more motivated as learners (M = 2.95,
SD = 1.13). Furthermore, many students perceived that they had to take more responsi-
bility for their learning (M = 3.91, SD = 0.96) in a flipped classroom course.
Noteworthy, some students also felt themselves alone during their learning (M = 3.01,
SD = 1.29). Table 2 shows the students’experiences of flipped classroom after the
course was completed.
The results of an analysis of the correlations between the measured variables, with a
particular focus on attitudes towards flipped classroom and its effect on learning and
motivation is presented in Table 3. Students with positive attitudes towards flipped
classroom more likely had positive attitudes towards video (p< 0.01), experienced
Table 2 Students’experiences of flipped classroom after the course
Experiences of flipped classroom n Percent M SD
I have a positive attitude towards flipped classroom after the course
Yes 180 75.00
No 60 25.00
I have a prior experience of flipped classroom
Yes 23 09.60
No 217 90.40
I appreciate learning with video 240 4.15 1.10
I am more flexible and mobile as learner 240 3.95 1.10
I have to take more responsibility for learning 240 3.91 0.96
I can study in my own pace 240 3.75 0.91
My learning processes are more supported 240 3.54 1.13
The non-traditional classroom activities were meaningful 240 3.40 1.13
It is easier and more effective to learn 240 3.17 1.03
I do more studying/learning on my own spare time 240 3.03 1.25
I feel more alone 240 3.01 1.29
I am more motivated as learner 240 2.95 1.13
I am more active as a learner 240 2.81 1.16
I learn more 240 2.74 1.07
I feel an increased workload that is stressful 240 2.61 1.20
I experience stronger peer-collaboration 240 2.45 1.01
It feels like a distance course 240 2.43 1.30
Likert scale items measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 6 of 10
increased motivation (p< 0.01), more effective learning (p< 0.01), and increased learn-
ing (p< 0.01). They also tended to agree that flipped classroom made them more active
as learners (p< 0.01) and take more responsibility for their learning (p< 0.01).
The use of video as a learning tool
Using flipped classroom and in particular video as a tool for assimilating knowledge
otherwise presented in traditional lectures proved to correlate strongly with perceived in-
creased motivation, increased learning and effective learning. When analyzing the stu-
dent’s experiences of using video as a learning tool in more detail a number of reasons for
appreciating video stand out (see Table 4 for an overview). The students strongly agreed
that it was useful for their learning to be able to pause (M = 4.52, SD = 0.85), rewind (M =
4.48, SD = 0.87) and fast-forward video (M = 4.04, SD = 1.36). They also agreed that the
combination of video and non-traditional lectures was useful (M = 3.73, SD = 1.16) as well
as being able to watch lectures in a mobile way (MD = 3.98, SD = 1.28).
The use of Moodle within the frame of flipped classroom
A learning management system (Moodle) was used during the course to support stu-
dents’learning processes within the frame of a flipped classroom model. As presented
Table 3 Correlations between variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Attitude towards FC 1,00
2. Attitude towards video ,74
**
1,00
3. Increased motivation ,81
**
,80
**
1,00
4. More effective learning ,85
**
,85
**
,74
**
1,00
5. Increased learning ,82
**
,87
**
,74
**
,89
**
1,00
6. More active learner ,80
**
,58
**
,68
**
,70
**
,70
**
1,00
7. More responsibility for learning ,67
**
,47
**
,49
**
,52
**
,49
**
,44
**
1,00
*psignificant at 0.05
** psignificant at 0.01
Table 4 Students’experiences of using video for learning
Experiences of using video for learning n M SD
Useful to pause video 231 4.52 0.85
Useful to rewind video 228 4.48 0.87
Useful to fast-forward video 210 4.04 1.36
Useful to watch lectures in a mobile way 240 3.98 1.28
The combination of video and non-traditional lectures was useful 240 3.73 1.16
Video made learning more effective 240 3.54 1.19
Video quality was satisfactory 240 3.48 1.23
Video made me learn more 240 3.38 1.22
Video motivated me to learn 240 3.26 1.15
Video can replace traditional lectures completely 240 2.59 1.33
I rather have traditional lectures than video 240 2.48 1.34
Learning through video resulted in more peer discussions 240 1.43 0.50
Likert scale items measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 7 of 10
in Table 5, the students appreciated this support (M = 4.22, SD = 0.86). In particular,
they found it useful to be able to see other students’questions posed in Moodle and
the teachers answers to those questions (M = 4.39, SD = 0.94), and for general commu-
nication with teachers (M = 4.07, SD = 1.05). Interestingly, the LMS itself contributed to
some student’s motivation to learn (M = 3.40, SD = 1.26).
Comparing low and high achievers
When comparing low and high achievers among the students in terms of attitudes to-
wards flipped classroom, video and the effect on learning and motivation some interest-
ing findings were obtained. The results of conducted independent sample t-tests
showed no significant differences in positive attitudes to flipped classroom of low
achievers (M = 3.37, SD = 0.74) and high achievers (M = 3.20, SD = 0.87), t(238) = 2.13,
p> 0.05. Significant differences were however revealed with regards to attitudes towards
the use of video of low achievers (M = 3.10, SD = 0.72) and high achievers (M = 2.67,
SD = 1.02), t(238) = 3.17, p< 0.05.
Interestingly, the perception of increased learning also significantly differed be-
tween low achievers (M = 3.13, SD = 0.93) and high achievers (M = 2.71, SD = 1.23),
t(238) = 2.40, p< 0.05. The tests likewise showed significant differences in perceived
more effective learning of low achievers (M = 3.25, SD = 0.95) and high achievers
(M = 2.80, SD = 1.32), t(238) = 2.46, p< 0.05. However, no significant differences
could be identified between low achievers and high achievers in the other variables
measured (see Table 6).
Conclusions
The calls for reforming traditional higher education teaching, and for transforming the
sage on the stage into the guide on the side in order to pave way for student-centered
active learning strategies have probably never been as loud as now. In this context,
flipped classroom has been proposed to answer these calls. Several studies have demon-
strated that flipped classroom as a teaching method may promote student engagement
and a more active approach to learning in higher education. The findings from this
study confirm the results of these studies and highlights additional advantages associ-
ated with the flipped classroom model.
The students in the study’s sample were found to generally appreciate the flipped
classroom. The most commonly valued reasons for this was that the students appreci-
ated learning through using video material, the opportunity to study in their own pace,
flexibility and mobility brought about by accessible video lectures, and that learning is
easier and more effective within the frame of the flipped classroom.
Table 5 Students’experiences of using the learning management system (Moodle)
Experiences of using Moodle n M SD
It was useful to see other students questions and teacher answers in Moodle 240 4.39 0.94
Moodle supported my learning 240 4.22 0.86
It was useful to communicate with teachers through Moodle 240 4.07 1.05
Moodle motivated me to learn 240 3.40 1.26
Likert scale items measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 8 of 10
A correlation analysis further demonstrated significant strong correlations between
students’appreciation of the flipped classroom experience on the one hand, and atti-
tudes towards video as a learning tool, increased motivation, increased learning, more
effective learning and more active learning on the other hand.
Interestingly, independent sample t-tests showed significant differences between low
and high achievers in that the low achievers tended to have more positive attitudes to-
wards the use of video as a learning tool. Low achievers also to higher extent perceived
increased and more effective learning through flipped classroom. A more detailed ana-
lysis of the students’experiences of using video showed that the most valued aspects of
video use was being able to pause and rewind the video lectures. Against this fact, it is
not unreasonable to conclude that low achievers, who might find traditional lectures
challenging and fast-paced (Young et al., 2009), experienced an empowerment using
the flipped classroom model in terms of gaining more opportunities to reflect and learn
in their own pace.
For all students in general, the results indicate that the reasons for students’percep-
tions of increased and more effective learning are associated with: 1) the affordances of
video lectures (the ability to reflect and learn in own pace); 2) more meaningful
practice-oriented and teacher supervised classroom activities; and 3) more supported
learning processes due to teacher and peer scaffolding in class and out of class through
the use of Moodle.
Thus, as final remarks, considering the ineffectiveness of traditional lectures in
retaining students’attention and promoting active learning (Windschitl, 1999; Young
et al., 2009) in higher education, the results of this study indicate that the flipped class-
room model seem to offer promising ways to engage students in more effective, sup-
portive, motivating and active learning, especially for low achievers and students that
may struggle with traditional lectures. However, the results should be viewed in light of
the limitations of this study. One such limitation is the non existence of a control
group which limits the external validity of the results. Another limitation is connected
Table 6 Comparing low- and high achievers experience of flipped classroom
Experiences of flipped classroom Achiever M SD F t p
Positive attitude towards FC Low 3.10 0.72 2.13 1.25 0.21
High 2.67 1.02
Increased motivation Low 3.16 0.94 4.56 1.95 0.52
High 2.81 1.22
Increased learning Low 3.13 0.93 10.10 2.40 0.01
High 2.71 1.23
More effective learning Low 3.25 0.95 12.09 2.46 0.01
High 2.80 1.32
Attitude towards video Low 3.10 0.72 11.22 3.17 0.02
High 2.67 1.02
More active learner Low 2.86 1.14 2.08 1.47 0.14
High 2.55 1.27
More responsibility for learning Low 3.55 1.00 0.08 0.45 0.65
High 3.47 1.06
psignificant at 0.05
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 9 of 10
to the fact that the majority of the student’s surveyed have not experienced flipped
classroom before, thus the results may partly reflect the influence of a new approach of
learning and teaching and not necessary the influence of the flipped classroom ap-
proach. It also should be noted that all results related to improved learning and effect-
iveness of learning is based on students self-declared perceptions and not on
independent measures. Future studies on the effects of flipped classroom should ad-
dress these limitations and in particular explore the extent to which the actual perform-
ance of students is or is not affected by the flipped classroom approach moving beyond
just student perceptions.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Received: 27 February 2016 Accepted: 14 July 2016
References
Beekes, W. (2006). The “millionaire”method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education,
7(1), 25–36.
Betihavas, V., Bridgman, H., Kornhaber, R., & Cross, M. (2015). The evidence for ‘flipping out’: A systematic review of the
flipped classroom in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 6,15–21.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference
Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
Bonwell, C. C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: revitalizing a traditional format. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
1996(67), 31–44.
Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: evidence from Australia. Business Education &
Accreditation, 6(1), 33–43.
Cashin, W. E. (1985). Improving lectures. Idea paper no. 14. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty
Evaluation and Development.
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-
level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563–580.
Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business
course. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 63–71.
Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal
of nutrition education and behavior, 47(1), 109–114.
Hung, H. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 28(1), 81–96.
Huxham, M. (2005). Learning in lectures Do ‘interactive windows’help? Active learning in higher education, 6(1), 17–31.
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College teaching, 41(1), 30–35.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Larson, S., & Yamamoto, J. (2013). Flipping the college spreadsheet skills classroom: initial empirical results. Journal of
Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 4(10), 751–758.
Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra
course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317–324.
McLaughlin, J. E., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., Davidson, C. A., Glatt, D. M., Roth, M. T., …Mumper, R. J. (2013). Pharmacy
student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education,77(9), 196.
McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., …Mumper, R. J. (2014). The
flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic
Medicine,89(2), 236–243.
Roach, T. (2014). Student perceptions toward flipped learning: new methods to increase interaction and active learning
in economics. International Review of Economics Education, 17,74–84.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: an opportunity to engage millennial students
through active learning strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44–49.
Rosie, A. (2000). “Deep learning”: a dialectical approach drawing on tutor-led web resources. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 1(1), 45–59.
Uzunboylu, H., & Karagozlu, D. (2015). Flipped classroom: a review of recent literature. World Journal on Educational
Technology, 7(2), 142–147.
Windschitl, M. (1999). Using small-group discussions in science lectures. College Teaching, 47(1), 23–7.
Young, M. S., Robinson, S., & Alberts, P. (2009). Students pay attention! Combating the vigilance decrement to improve
learning during lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 41–55.
Nouri International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2016) 13:33 Page 10 of 10
