The idea of “flipping” what happens inside and outside of the classroom has gained popularity quickly and is already an approach known to most faculty and used by many. Claims for its effectiveness were touted initially without much research, but studies on the approach are catching up and providing evidence that supports some of the claims.
The evidence most supportive of the flipped approach comes from the SMET (science, math, engineering, and technology) fields and quantitative courses. Students in biology, economics, nursing, and physics have “strongly positive reactions” to flipped courses (p. 184). Students said they preferred the flipped approach over lectures in studies done in organic chemistry, nutrition, accounting, and calculus courses. The flipped approach garnered high course evaluations in analyses done in engineering, computing, statistics, and physics courses. The approach’s effectiveness in SMET fields and quantitative courses has been studied in terms of performance on sets of exam questions, whole exams, final exams, and overall course grades, again with mostly positive results.
There is considerably less evidence documenting its effects in other fields, so a psychology research team wondered if course content might not play a role in the effectiveness of flipped approaches. “STEM-Q [quantitative] topic areas lend themselves easily to spending class time solving math, engineering, and computing problems or engaging in laboratory and practical applications . . . Subject matter in this course [intro to psychology] often involve[s] ideas or concepts that are less amenable to hands-on applications in the classroom than those in STEM-Q fields” (p. 184).
To test their suppositions, this team tackled four research questions: 1) What were students’ attitudes toward the approach when it was used in an introductory psychology course? 2) Were there cognitive, personality, or demographic differences that affected those attitudes? 3) How did the approach affect test performance? 4) Did personality, cognitive, and demographic features moderate the effectiveness of the flipped approach?
The two instructors involved in teaching the course did not flip the entire course, but rather selected four topics that they flipped. The topics were selected because students often find them challenging and the content lent itself to in-class activities. The rest of the course content was covered with traditional lectures. For the flipped topics, students listened to vodcasts (the material previously covered in the course with lecture and PowerPoint slides) and read relevant content in the text. In class, after listening to the vodcasts and doing the reading, students did worksheets individually, in pairs, or small groups; engaged in whole class discussions; and participated in various role-playing activities.
“A majority (56.2 percent) of students either slightly or strongly preferred lecture to the flipped classroom, whereas only 38 percent preferred the flipped methods” (p. 186). Interestingly through, 57 percent did find the flipped classroom more interesting, and a whopping 93 percent recommended using the flipped approach to some degree in courses. These preferences did not differ reliably across gender, year in college, ethnicity, the two instructors, or student personality traits. As for cognitive factors, the data showed that “students with lower GPAs and lower exam and standardized test scores tended to prefer the flipped classroom format” (p. 187).
Course evaluation data also revealed some interesting findings. Students reported that flipping made the workload heavier and more challenging. They used technology and the library more and rated the course more effective than previous sections of the same course taught with lecture only. “A statistical trend also indicated that students in the flipped condition more strongly agreed that the student-faculty relationship supported learning” (p. 187).
The flipped experiences in this course did not improve test scores. Students did better on test questions directly related to exercises used in class, but they did less well on test questions not covered in a class exercise. “The flipped classroom appears to have had a very modest and nuanced effect on learning in an introductory psychology course” (p. 189).
In discussing future research needs, the research team notes the importance of pairing techniques and exercises so as to maximize the learning. Given the interest students have in flipped approaches, those instructors who are flipping part of a course should consider the fit between the topic and the approach. It makes sense that the approach may not work equally for all content covered in the course. This research group concludes the flipped classroom “has great potential” for psychology students, but it’s an approach that needs to be used with care and caution (p. 190).
This article is a great resource for faculty interested in flipping a course. It contains a complete list of the advantages and the drawbacks. For faculty using the approach, the article also contains a well-organized and clearly written review of the research on flipped courses across disciplines. Its analysis of how flipping affected students and learning in this course is thorough and robust.
Reference:
Roehling, P. V., Root Luna, L. M, Richie, F. J., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (2017). The benefits, drawbacks, and challenges of using the flipped classroom in an introduction to psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 44(3), 183–192.
