Content uploaded by Robin Holding Kay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robin Holding Kay on Nov 28, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
EXAMINING STEM-BASED FLIPPED CLASSROOMS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
R. Kay, K. Dermott
University of Ontario Institute of Technology (CANADA)
Abstract
The flipped classroom reverses the typical sequence of listening to an in-class lecture in class
followed by completing assigned work at home, to an approach where students watch video lectures
online before class, then participate in problem-solving and application-based exercises in class with
the instructor acting as a guide. Previous literature reviews have been somewhat unsystematic [1],
limited in scope [2] or focussed exclusively on nursing [3]. It is argued that there are specific
affordances in STEM subject areas that need to be addressed when implementing a flipped learning
approach. The purpose of the current paper was to conduct a review of the literature the use of flipped
classrooms in STEM-focussed higher education classrooms. Forty-one papers were reviewed in the
areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. First, an analysis is provided of student
attitudes toward flipped classrooms (compared to traditional classrooms), videos, pedagogy used, and
class atmosphere. Second, the benefits of flipped classrooms are discussed including perceptions of
learning, engagement, student confidence, collaboration, use of class time and assessment. Third,
challenges associated with the flipped classroom are reviewed including difficulty focusing, video
quality, inability to ask questions, learning preferences, classroom interactions, and workload. Next,
the impact of flipped classrooms on learning performance is presented. Finally, limitations in previous
research and future opportunities are explored.
Keywords: STEM, flipped learning, flipped classroom, literature review, science, mathematics,
engineering, technology.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Flipped Learning Network [45] defines flipped learning as
a pedagogical approach 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 environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts
and engage creatively in the subject matter
In a typical flipped classroom, students watch a series of videos prior to class. In class, they explore
and practice concepts addressed in the videos with activities, discussions, labs, demonstrations, and
debates. Students can move through the content at their own pace and/or collaborate with their peers.
There are also opportunities for guidance and support from the instructor during class.
Previous literature reviews on the flipped classroom have been somewhat unsystematic or general [1],
limited in scope [2] or focussed exclusively on nursing [3]. Because the flipped classroom emphasizes
active participation during class, it is argued that STEM-based subject areas, which often involve the
application of concepts, labs, and problem sets, may be well suited to this format. The purpose of the
following paper, then, is to provide a review of the literature on the use of flipped learning in STEM-
based classrooms.
2 METHODOLOGY
To ensure a high-quality review of the literature on STEM flipped classrooms, the following steps were
pursued. First, a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed articles was completed based on a wide
range of key terms including flipped classroom, flipped learning, inverted classroom, STEM, science,
mathematics, technology and engineering. Five databases were searched including the AACE Digital
Library, Academic Search Premiere, EBSCOhost, ERIC, Google Scholar, Scholars Portal Journals.
Second, the reference section for each article found was searched to locate additional articles. Third,
key educational and technology journals from around the world were searched independently and
included the following publications: Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, British Journal of
Proceedings of ICERI2018 Conference
12th-14th November 2018, Seville, Spain
ISBN: 978-84-09-05948-5
9487
Educational Technology, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Computers and Education,
Computers in Human Behavior, Educational Technology Research and Development, Interdisciplinary
Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Journal of
Educational Computing Research, Turkish Journal Online Journal of Distance Education. The search
process uncovered 42 peer-reviewed articles published from 2000 to 2016. Seventeen articles
focussed on science, nine articles on technology, four articles on engineering, and 12 articles on
mathematics.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Student Attitudes
An analysis of the literature revealed four themes related to student attitudes towards learning in the
flipped classroom including comparison with traditional classrooms, videos, pedagogy, and classroom
atmosphere.
3.1.1 Flipped vs. Traditional Classrooms
At least five studies reported that the flipped classroom was more effective than the traditional
classroom with respect to learning. Butt [4] reported that 75% of actuarial students felt that the flipped
classroom format was beneficial to their learning when compared to the traditional classroom.
Moraros et al. [5] noted that 80% of epidemiology students in the flipped classroom found the format to
be effective. Eighty percent of undergraduate chemistry students agreed that the flipped classroom
was more useful than the traditional classroom [6]. Blair et al. [7] reported that 60% of undergraduate
engineering students strongly agreed that the online components of the flipped classroom were more
effective when compared to the traditional classroom. Finally, Foertsch et al. [8] noted that
undergraduate engineering students in the flipped classroom rated the lectures significantly higher
than in the traditional classroom.
3.1.2 Videos
Videos are a fundamental component of the flipped classroom. Eleven studies reported on three
components including frequency of use [6,9,10], usefulness [6,11,12,13], and how well the videos
enhanced student learning [6,9,11,12,14-16]. Concerning frequency of video use, three studies
[6,9,10], all focussing on chemistry, noted that higher education students used flipped classroom
videos frequently. Four studies reported that flipped learning videos were useful in chemistry [6],
mechanical engineering [13], multimedia development [12], and information literacy [11]. Finally, at
least seven studies indicated that the videos used for flipped learning enhanced learning
[6,9,11,12,14,15,16].
3.1.3 Pedagogy Used
A number of papers reported that students appreciated the in-class, active learning pedagogy
supported by the flipped classroom approach [4, 5,13,17,18,19,22-25]. Belfi et al. [17] indicated that
radiology students found the modules of the flipped classroom most valuable when reinforced with in-
class activities. Yeung and O’Malley [25] reported that undergraduate chemistry students in the
flipped classroom enjoyed the increased number of in-class activities and believed they were
beneficial to their learning. Mason et al. [13] noted that undergraduate mechanical engineering
students thought that the format of the flipped classroom was more effective than a traditional
classroom with respect to preparing them for an engineering career. Finally, Lage et al. [19] claimed
that undergraduate microeconomics students in the flipped classroom believed that the in-class
experiments were effective in helping students to learn.
3.1.4 Classroom Atmosphere
Several studies indicated that students liked the atmosphere supported by the flipped classroom
strategy [18,20,21]. Love et al. [21] stated that undergraduate programming students in the flipped
classroom felt that the atmosphere in class was relaxed. Baepler et al. [20] indicated that
undergraduate chemistry students in the flipped classroom believed that the format of the course
allowed for more flexibility in class than the traditional classroom. Finally. Frydenberg [18] reported
that undergraduate information systems students in the flipped classroom found the format of the
course to be more personal.
9488
3.2 Benefits of Flipped STEM Classrooms
3.2.1 Perceptions of Learning
With respect perceptions of learning, students appreciated at least six qualities of flipped learning.
First, numerous studies reported that the flipped classroom allowed them to better control the pace of
their learning [8,9,13,14,16,17,21,22,24,25-35]. Second, several studies noted that students were
better able to follow course material and content when a flipped classroom approach was used [18].
Third, several researchers stated that students particularly enjoyed the video segments in flipped
learning [8,27,34]. Fourth, a number of studies observed that in-class activities contributed
significantly to the learning process [20,22,36,38]. Fifth, students in flipped classrooms said that they
learned at a deeper level compared to a traditional classroom [4,14,20,21,36]. Finally, students in the
flipped classroom liked that they could bring their questions to class after watching the homework
videos [6,26,39].
3.2.2 Engagement
A number of studies suggested that students were more engaged in flipped learning environments,
particularly with videos and/or in-class activities. Enfield [12] reported that 57% of undergraduate
multimedia students felt that videos from the flipped classroom were engaging. McCleery [22] added
that undergraduate biology students liked that the videos were short thereby maintaining attention.
Franciszkowicz [9] added that undergraduate chemistry students said the visual features of videos
were engaging. McLaughlin et al. [23] indicated that pharmacy students in the flipped classroom felt
that the videos forced them to be more involved with the course content. Finally, Gross et al. [10]
noted that undergraduate chemistry students in the flipped classroom attempted and worked through
online homework questions more consistently than students in the traditional classroom.
Numerous studies reported that in-class activities were more motivating and engaging for
undergraduate students in flipped classrooms than traditional classrooms in chemistry [6,9,20,36],
biology [22], physiology [24], pharmacy [23,38], algebra [21] information systems [18],
microeconomics [16,19], and multimedia [12].
3.2.3 Student Confidence
At least five studies claimed that the flipped classroom helped undergraduate students take more
ownership, responsibility, and control with respect to their learning [9,10,23,28,38]. Students in the
flipped classroom also reported increased confidence in their subject area knowledge for calculus [27],
algebra [29], pharmaceutical studies [30] and multimedia [12]. The flipped classroom was also seen
to improve student’s problem-solving skills in chemistry [36], information systems [28], and
engineering [8].
3.2.4 Collaboration
Four themes emerged regarding flipped learning and collaboration including increased participation
[6,19,21,31,32,41], gaining multiple perspectives [8,18], improved learning [16,19,27] and better
communication [40]. Students in the flipped classroom reported increased interactivity with their peers
[19,32,41]. Foertsch [8] added that undergraduate engineering students enjoyed having multiple
perspectives on how to solve problems. Furthermore, increased learning was attributed to
collaboration by undergraduate calculus [27] and microeconomics [16, 19] students. Finally,
increased communication among students was observed in undergraduate calculus flipped
classrooms [40].
3.2.5 Use of Class Time
Five studies discussed the use of class time in the flipped classroom focusing on two areas: increase
in effectiveness [4,29,36,42] and the increased time for discussions [22]. Butt [4] reported that 80% of
actuarial students felt that class time was used significantly more efficiently in the flipped classroom
than in the traditional classroom. Fautch [36] indicated that undergraduate organic chemistry students
believed that watching the videos before class made the in-class time more productive. Ogden [29]
noted that undergraduate algebra students claimed that the flipped classroom allowed in-class time to
be more effectively used and that students could focus on what they did not understand. Finally,
McCleery [22] indicated that undergraduate biology students liked that there was more time in class
for discussions and labs when a flipped learning approach was employed.
9489
3.2.6 Assessment
Several studies reported that undergraduate students thought that completing assignments was easier
in flipped classrooms. Blair et al. [7] reported 47% of undergraduate engineering students believed
that the assignment instructions were significantly clearer in the flipped versus the traditional
classroom. The format of the flipped classroom also helped students with assignment completion.
Smith [6] noted that 84% of undergraduate chemistry students agreed that the videos were helpful in
completing their homework. Smith [6] also found that 71% of undergraduate chemistry students
agreed that the in-class problem solving, supported by a flipped classroom framework, helped them to
finish their homework. Finally, Flynn [37] observed that undergraduate chemistry students in the
flipped classroom felt that the problems they completed in class better prepared them for their
assignments and exams.
3.3 Challenges of Flipped STEM Classrooms
3.3.1 Difficulty Focusing
A common complaint of undergraduate students in the flipped classroom is that they had difficulty
focusing on videos watched outside of class in biology [22], algebra [29], differential equations [35]
and engineering [8,42]. Secondary school AP chemistry students also had difficulty focusing when
watching the videos outside of class [31]. Foertsch et al. [8] reported that sixty-four percent of
undergraduate engineering students surveyed in the flipped classroom believed that the flipped
classroom format required more self-discipline than the traditional classroom.
3.3.2 Video Quality
Both the length and pace of videos was a challenge for students in flipped classrooms. Schultz et al.
[31] indicated that some secondary school AP chemistry students did not like lengthy videos.
Radiology students in the flipped classroom wanted a rewind button during the videos, and they also
wanted the ability to fast forward when desired [17]. Finally, Yeung and O’Malley [25] noted that some
undergraduate chemistry students in the flipped classroom felt that it was hard to follow the videos,
due to the fast pace.
Learning from videos was also a challenge for some students. Yong et al. [35] noted that some
undergraduate differential equations students in the flipped classroom could not learn from video
presentations of material. Similarly, Larson and Yamamoto [14] reported that undergraduate students
in the flipped classroom preferred the traditional classroom because they found it less frustrating to
comprehend. Roach [16] indicated that undergraduate microeconomics students did not like that the
videos closely resembled real lectures which they found to be boring. Yeung and O’Malley [25] noted
that some undergraduate chemistry students in the flipped classroom claimed that the videos were not
as engaging as being in a live lecture.
3.3.3 Inability to Ask Questions
Another challenge of the flipped classroom was not being able to ask questions when watching videos
outside of class. Undergraduate chemistry [25,36], calculus [27,40], and differential equations [35]
students in the flipped classroom did not like that they could not ask questions immediately. Schultz et
al. [31] similarly reported that secondary school AP chemistry students in the flipped classroom
disliked the inability to ask questions spontaneously. Finally, Foertsch et al. [8] indicated that
undergraduate engineering students in the flipped classroom missed having the opportunity to ask
questions like they would during a lecture.
3.3.4 Learning Preferences
The flipped classroom format was not a good learning match for all students. Fautch [36] indicated
that undergraduate organic chemistry students initially found it difficult to adjust to the flipped
classroom format. Foertsch et al. [8] reported that 36% of undergraduate engineering students
surveyed thought it would be easier to understand the material if it was presented in lecture format.
The use of class time in the flipped classroom was also a challenge for some students. Wasserman et
al. [40] observed that undergraduate calculus students in the flipped classroom felt that class time was
used less effectively than in the traditional classroom. Specifically, these students felt that class time
was unproductive in flipped learning because they had to wait for their peers to catch up or for their
instructor if they were having difficulty and had questions [40].
9490
3.3.5 Classroom Interactions
Two studies focussed on social interactions in the flipped classroom [4, 22, 31]. Blair et al. [7]
indicated that undergraduate engineering students claimed that the traditional classroom was more
student-centred than the flipped classroom. McCleery [22] added that undergraduate biology students
did not like discussion groups and felt uncomfortable and timid when participating in discussion groups
in a flipped classroom. Some students also reported having a lack of connection with instructors in a
flipped classroom [22].
3.3.6 Workload
A final challenge of the flipped classroom was workload [6,24,43]. Tune et al. [24] noted that graduate
physiology students surveyed in the flipped classroom felt that the level of effort required in a flipped
learning format was not reflected in the number of credits they earned. Some students in the flipped
classroom believed that the reading assignments were too extensive [32] and not enjoyable [4].
McCleery [22] added that undergraduate biology students felt that it was too much work to watch
videos before class.
3.4 Learning Performance
At least 13 studies reported that students in flipped classrooms performed better than their peers in
traditional classrooms on assignments [13,17,23,27], exams [10,15,17,20,24,30,31,37,38,40], final
grades earned [10,36,37,43] and lower failure rates [37,43].
On the other hand, 10 studies reported that there was no significant difference between flipped and
traditional classrooms with respect to student’s assignment scores [14], pre-test and post-test scores
[11,25, 44], quiz scores [35], exam scores [7,23], final grades [5] or failure rates in the flipped
classroom [7].
4 CONCLUSIONS
This paper reviewed the literature on the use of flipped learning in STEM-based classrooms and
focussed on student attitudes, overall benefits, overall challenges and learning performance. With
respect to attitudes, many studies reported that students liked flipped better than traditional classroom
format. They also responded positively to the videos, pedagogical approach and atmosphere of
flipped classrooms. Overall benefits reported included perceptions of more effective learning, higher
engagement, increased confidence and collaboration, better use of class time and better assessment
outcomes. Overall challenges of the flipped learning approach included difficulty focussing on videos,
quality of video communication, the inability to ask questions when viewing videos, preferences for a
traditional lecture approach, limitations in classroom interactions and increased workload. Finally, a
number of studies reported increased performance in assignments, final exams, final exams as well as
reduced failure rates. However, at least 10 studies reported no difference in learning performance
between flipped and traditional classroom teaching approaches.
One way of addressing the mixed results reported in this literature review is to concentrate on
improving methodology. There were at least five limitations regarding previous research conducted on
flipped classrooms. First, many of the teachers who were involved in implementing the flipped
classroom had not used this approach before - they were first-time “flippers.” The results for students
taught by teachers with more experience at using the flipped classroom may be quite different from
students taught by novice teachers. Second, most studies on STEM-based flipped classrooms
focussed on post-secondary programs. Only one study examined the flipped classroom in an AP
secondary school chemistry classroom. Factors such as teaching approach, content difficulty, type of
learning tasks, and student ability to work independently may alter the results in a high school
environment. Third, in terms of evaluating student performance, only eight studies used formal pre-
and post-tests [11,17,25,30,35,40,44]. Fourth, the questions that were used to ask students about
their level of knowledge were predominately multiple-choice questions. The type of questions asked
(knowledge-based vs. application-based) was only discussed in eight studies [11,13,25,30,35,38,43].
Question type is an important factor when assessing student performance. Finally, detailed
descriptions of pedagogy and content knowledge for either flipped or traditional classroom are not
provided in a majority of studies. Understanding the precise teaching strategies employed and the
intended learning goals may be critical to deciphering the mixed results reported in the current
literature review of flipped learning in STEM-based classrooms.
9491
REFERENCES
[1] H. Uzunboylu & D. Karagozlu, “Flipped classroom: A review of recent literature”, World Journal
on Educational Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 142-147, 2015.
[2] W. J. Zuber, “The flipped classroom, a review of the literature. Industrial and Commercial
Training”, Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 97-103, 2016.
[3] V. Betihavas, H. Bridgman, R. Kornhaber & M. Cross, “The evidence for ‘flipping out’: A
systematic review of the flipped classroom in nursing education”, Nurse Education Today, vol.
38, pp. 15-21, 2016.
[4] A. Butt, “Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from Australia”,
Business Education and Accreditation, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 33-44, 2014.
[5] J. Moraros, A. Islam, S. Yu, R. Banow, & B. Schindelka, “Flipping for success: Evaluating the
effectiveness of a novel teaching approach in a graduate level setting”, BMC Medical Education,
vol 15, no. 27, pp. 1-10, 2015.
[6] D. J. Smith, “Student attitudes toward flipping the general chemistry classroom”, Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 607-614, 2013.
[7] E. Blair, C. Maharaj & S. Primus, “Performance and perception in the flipped classroom”,
Education and Information Technologies, pp. 1-8.
[8] J. Foertsch, G. Moses, J. Strikwerda & M. Litzkow, “Reversing the lecture/homework paradigm
using eTEACH web-based streaming video software”, Journal of Engineering Education, vol
91., no. 3, pp. 267-274, 2002.
[9] M. Franciszkowicz, “Video-based additional instruction”, Journal of the Research Centre for
Educational Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 5-14.
[10] D. Gross, E. S. Pietri, G. Anderson, K. Moyano-Camihort, & M. J. Graham, “Increased preclass
preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom”, CBE-Life
Sciences Education, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1-8, 2015.
[11] A. W. Brooks, “Information literacy and the flipped classroom: Examining the impact of a one-
shot flipped class on student learning and perceptions”, Communications in Information
Literacy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 225-235, 2014.
[12] J. Enfield, “Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate
multimedia students at CSUN”, TechTrends, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 14-27, 2013.
[13] G. S. Mason, T. R. Shuman & K. E. Cook, “Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted
classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course”, IEEE
Transactions in Education, vol. 56, no. 4, 2013.
[14] S. Larson & J. Yamamoto, “Flipping the college spreadsheet skills classroom: Initial empirical
results”, Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, vol. 4, no. 10, pp.
751-758, 2013.
[15] B. Love, A. Hodge, N. Grandgenett & A. W. Swift, “Student learning and perceptions in a flipped
linear algebra course”, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 317-324, 2014.
[16] T. Roach, “Student perceptions towards flipped learning: New methods to increase interaction
and active learning in economics”, International Review of Economics Education, vol. 17, pp.
74-84, 2014.
[17] L. M. Belfi, R. J. Bartolotta, A. E. Giambrone, C. Davi, & R. J. Min, “Flipping the introductory
clerkship in radiology: Impact on medical student performance and perceptions”, Academic
Radiology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 794-801, 2015.
[18] M. Frydenberg, “Flipping Excel”, Information Systems Education Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 63-
73, 2013.
[19] M. J. Lage, G. J. Platt & M. Treglia, “Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive
learning environment”, The Journal of Economic Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 30-43, 2000.
9492
[20] P. Baepler, J. D. Walker, & M. Driessen, “It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and
efficiency in active learning classrooms”, Computers & Education, vol. 78, pp. 227-236, 2014.
[21] B. Love & A. Hodge, C. Corritore & D. C. Ernst, “Inquiry-based learning and the flipped
classroom model”, PRIMUS, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 745-762, 2015.
[22] R. McCleery, “Teaching wildlife techniques to millennials with a flipped classroom”, Wildlife
Society Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 4, pp 822-826, 2015.
[23] J. E. McLaughlin, L. M. Griffin, D. A. Esserman, C. A. Davidson, D. Glatt, T. M. Roth, N.
Gharkholonarehe & R. J. Mumper, “Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and
perception in a flipped satellite classroom”, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol.
77, no. 9, p. 196, 2013.
[24] J. D. Tune, M. Sturek & D. P. Basile, “Flipped classroom model improves graduate student
performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology”, vol. 37, no. 4, p. 316-320,
2013.
[25] K. Yeung & P. J. O’Malley, “Making ‘the flip’ work: Barriers to and implementation strategies for
introducing flipped teaching methods into traditional higher education courses”, New Directions,
vol 10, no. 1, pp. 59-63, 2014.
[26] S. Guerrero, D. Baumgartel & M. Zobott, “The use of screencasting to transform traditional
pedagogy in a preservice mathematics content course”, Journal of Computers in Mathematics
and Science Teaching, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 173-193, 2013.
[27] J. McGivney-Burelle & F. Xue, “Flipping calculus”, PRIMUS: Problems, resources, and issues in
mathematics undergraduate studies, vol. 23, no. 5, p. 477-486, 2013.
[28] H. N. Mok, “Teaching tip: The flipped classroom”, Journal of Information Systems Education,
vol. 25, no. 1, p. 7-11, 2014.
[29] L. Ogden, “Student perceptions of the flipped classroom in college algebra”, PRIMUS:
Problems, resources, and issues in mathematics undergraduate studies, vol. 25, no. 9-10, pp.
782-791, 2015.
[30] R. Pierce & J. Fox, “Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a
renal pharmacotherapy module, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol. 76, no. 10,
pp. 196, 2012.
[31] D. Schultz, S. Duffield, S. C. Rasmussen, & J. Wageman, “Effects of the flipped classroom
model on student performance for advanced placement high school chemistry students”,
Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 91, no. 9, pp. 1334-1339, 2014.
[32] D. Sinouvassane & N. Nalini, “Perception of the flipped classroom model among year one and
year three health science students”, International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, vol. 6., no. 3, pp. 215-218, 2016.
[33] A. A. Tawfik & C. Lilly, “Using a flipped classroom approach to support problem-based learning”,
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 20, no. 3., p. 299-315, 2015.
[34] T. W. Tan, K. C. D. Tan, Y. K. Yan, Y. C. Yeo & L. W. Yeo, “How flip teaching supports
undergraduate chemistry laboratory learning”, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol.
15, no. 4, pp. 550-567, 2014.
[35] D. Yong, R. Levy & N. Lape, “Why no difference? A controlled flipped classroom study for
introductory differential equations course”, PRIMUS, vol. 25, no.9-10, pp. 907-921, 2015.
[36] J. M. Fautch, “The flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry in small classes: Is it
effective?”, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 16, no. 179-186, pp. 179-186,
2015.
[37] A. B. Flynn, “Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: Organic and spectroscopy,
large and small, first to third year, English and French”, Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, vol. 16, pp. 198-211, 2015.
[38] B. Ryan, “Flipping over: Student-centred learning and assessment”, Journal of Perspectives in
Applied Academic Practice, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 30-39, 2013.
9493
[39] S. G. Wilson, “The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an undergraduate
statistics course”, Teaching of Psychology, vol. 40, no. 3., pp. 193-199, 2013.
[40] N. H. Wasserman, C. Quint, S. A. Norris & T. Carr, “Exploring flipped classroom instruction in
calculus III”, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, pp. 1-24.
[41] J. F. Strayner, “How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and
task orientation”, Learning Environments Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 171-193, 2012.
[42] R. Toto & H. Nguyen, “Flipping the work design in an industrial engineering course. In Frontiers
in Education Conference (FIE ’09).”
[43] C. Nwosisi, A. Ferreira, W. Rosenberg & K. Walsh, “A study of the flipped classroom and its
effectiveness in flipping thirty percent of the course content”, International Journal of Information
and Technology, vol. 6, no. 5, p. 348-351, 2016.
[44] R. S. Davies, D. L. Dean & N. Ball, “Flipping the classroom and instructional technology
integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course”, Educational Technology
Research and Development, vol. 61, no. 4, p. 563-580, 2013.
[45] Flipped Learning Network, “Definition of flipped learning”. Retrieved from
http://flippedlearning.org/definition-of-flipped-learning/
9494
