The Effect of the Flipped Classroom Model on Learners’ Academic Achievement, Attitudes and Social Presence

Abstract

Flipped learning reverses the traditional teacher-centered understanding of education and provides a more active learning experience. In the traditional understanding of education, the teaching of a topic is carried out in a classroom setting using a teacher-centered approach, while its assimilation is carried out by learners outside the classroom through activities such as homework. The flipped learning approach is a model in which learners study prepared content before courses, generally at their homes, and assimilate the topic in the classroom through various activities. A well-designed learning process enables learners to develop positive affective attitudes and to increase their perception of social presence, which positively affects academic achievement. This study aimed to design a face-to-face course using the flipped classroom model and to investigate this course on learners’ academic achievement, their attitudes towards e-learning and their perception of social presence in e-learning environments. This study was designed as a pretest/posttest with no control group study. The results indicated that the flipped classroom model has a significant effect on these three different dependent variables. As a consequence, instead of the traditional face-to-face learning model, educators can use the flipped classroom model in which learners are more active and can get more support.

Keywords

• Flipped classroom,academic achievement,social presence,e-learning attitudes

References

1. Akcaoglu, M. & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3).
2. Alsowat, H. (2016). An EFL flipped classroom teaching model: Effects on English language higher-order thinking skills, student engagement and satisfaction. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 108-121.
3. Bishop, J. L. & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A Survey of the Research. 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 1-18). Atlanta: GA.
4. Bülbül, H. I., Batmaz, I., Şahin, Y. G., Küçükali, M., Balta, Ö. Ç., & Balta, C. K. (2006). Web destekli ders çalıştırıcı tasarımı. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 5(2), 12.
5. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.
6. Costley, J. (2016). The effects of instructor control on critical thinking and social presence: Variations within three online asynchronous learning environments. Journal of Educators Online, 13(1), 109-171.
7. Crews, T. & Butterfield, J. B. (2014). Data for flipped classroom design: Using student feedback to identify the best components from online and face-to-face classes. Higher Education Studies, 4(3), 38.
8. Flumerfelt, S. & Green, G. (2013). Using lean in the flipped classroom for at risk students. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 356-366.

9. Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12–17.
10. Görü-Doğan, T. (2015). Sosyal medyanın öğrenme süreçlerinde kullanımı: Ters-yüz edilmiş öğrenme yaklaşımına ilişkin öğrenen görüşleri, AUAd, 1(2), 24-48.
11. Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computermediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
12. Günel, M., Kabataş Memiş, E., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenimi – YYBÖ yaklaşımının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fen akademik başarısına ve fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik tutumlarına etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(155), 49-62.
13. Haznedar, Ö. & Baran, B. (2012). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencileri için e-öğrenmeye yönelik genel bir tutum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 2(2), 42-59.
14. Jakobsen, K. V. & Knetemann, M. (2017). Putting structure to flipped classrooms using team-based learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 177-185.
15. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel.
16. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G. & Oigara, J. (2014). Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
17. Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Çebi, A., & Kan, A. (2014). E-öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik “sosyal bulunuşluk ölçeği” geliştirme çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(2), 755-768.
18. Knewton.com. (2011). The flipped classroom ınfographic. Erişim Tarihi 17 Ocak 2014 [url: http://www.knewton.com/flipped-classroom/]. Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Research, 37(6), 631–661. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496406294322
19. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an ınclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.
20. Marks, D. B. (2015). Flipping the classroom: Turning an instructional methods course upside down. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online), 12(4), 241.
21. McGuire, B. F. (2016). Integrating the intangibles into asynchronous online instruction: Strategies for improving interaction and social presence. Journal of Effective Teaching, 16(3), 62-75.
22. McLellan, H. (1999). Online education as interactive experience: Some guiding models. Educational Technology, 39(5), 36-42.
23. Ogden, L., Pyzdrowski, L., & Shambaugh, N. (2014). A teaching model for the college algebra flipped classroom. In J. Keengwe, G. Onchwari & J. Oigara (Eds.), Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model (47-70). Hershey: Information Science Reference.
24. Özpinar, İ., Yenmez, A. A., & Gökçe, S. (2016). An application of flipped classroom method in the instructional technologies and material development course. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(12), 213-226.
25. Phillips, L. & Phillips, M. (2016). Improved student outcomes in a flipped statistics course. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 6(1), 88-98.
26. Reich, J. (2012). Rethinking teaching and time with the flipped classroom. EdTech Researcher Education Week. Erişim Tarihi 20 Ocak 2014 [url:http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek /edtechresearcher/2012/06/rethinking_teaching_and_time_with_the_flipped_classroom.html].
27. Richland, L. E. & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(2), 177-192.
28. Richardson, J., Swan, K., Lowenthal, P. & Ice, P. (2016). Social presence in online learning: Past, present, and future. In Proceedings of global learn-global conference on learning and technology (pp. 477-483). Limerick, Ireland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
29. Sun, J. C. Y. & Wu, Y. T. (2016). Analysis of learning achievement and teacher–student interactions in flipped and conventional classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1).
30. Tu, C. H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34-45.
31. Unal, Z. & Unal, A. (2017). Comparison of student performance, student perception, and teacher satisfaction with traditional versus flipped classroom models. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 145-164. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1049a.
32. Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247-271.