How do inverted classroom (flipping the classroom ...€¦ · Web viewStudents’ Perceptions of an Inverted Classroom Model of Instruction in an Undergraduate Human Resource Development

Running Head: STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 1

Students’ Perceptions of an Inverted Classroom Model of Instruction in an Undergraduate

Human Resource Development Course

The Internet presents innovative pedagogical opportunities and learning spaces for

educators in higher education to further engage students in academia (Rourke & Coleman, 2010).

There is overwhelming evidence corroborating the notion that new innovative ideas and

resources continue to evolve seeking to enhance education and improve transfer of learning.

Wang (2010) corroborates “Currently, many educators are focusing their efforts on the design

and implementation of more active and collaborative methods of teaching and learning, in order

to better prepare learners for the teamwork and project/problem solving approaches necessary for

work places in the 21st century” (p. 831). Online learning has provided new tools and

applications for merging innovative learning environments to engage the needs and learning

preferences of students (Ishtaiwa & Abulibdeh, 2012). In the last 12 years, educational research

has provided ample support for the assertion that students in online-learning conditions perform

better than those receiving face-to-face instruction (Ke & Kwak, 2013). With the focus on

enhancing the design and implementation of active teaching methods and the perceived success

of online learning, the use of a new blended learning environment has been inspired.

A blended learning environment seeks to further engage students and improve transfer of

learning in academia by utilizing face-to-face and online components. Commonly referred to as

“flipping the classroom,” the inverted classroom incorporates a blended learning environment.

Silberman (2006) argues that, “With a blended solution, trainers can use e-learning [online] to

deliver information content, assess performance, and provide individual feedback. Time spent in

the classroom is then reserved for whole group discussions, practice, and rehearsals, and face-to-

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 2

face interaction” (p. 201). Mason, Shuman and Cook (2013) define the inverted classroom by

describing its characteristics: “In an inverted classroom, course content is disseminated outside

the classroom through traditional formats such as assigned readings and homework problems and

through new formats such as video lectures, PowerPoint presentations and Web-based tutorials”

(p. 430). An inverted classroom incorporates face-to-face time with the instructor to discuss and

apply the course content learned outside of class through interactive and collaborative activities

(Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013). Strayer (2012) adds, “Because the two different learning

experiences are so different, there is a real opportunity for a blended learning environment to

have a synergistic effect in which the whole is greater than the combined parts” (p.191).

Through a blended learning approach, the inverted classroom attempts to strengthen the assets of

the face-to-face and online components while minimizing their drawbacks (Wang, 2010).

Although, previous literature ascertains that educators are focusing their efforts on new

innovative instructional designs and resources to enhance education and increase transfer of

learning, minimal research on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of

instruction creates barriers to understanding the impact of the model on the students.

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to analyze students' perceptions of the inverted

classroom model of instruction applied in the Development of Materials and Programs

(LTLE485) course of the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor at James Madison

University. Various innovative instructional strategies are being implemented in higher

education to enhance education and increase transfer of learning. The inverted classroom

disseminates course content outside the classroom and then provides opportunities for discussion

and application of the content during face-to-face time with the instructor. By evaluating


students' perceptions of an inverted classroom model, higher educators have the opportunity to

understand the impact this model has on their students and the future of academics. Although

there has been relatively little research on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model,

Ke and Kwak (2013) advocate the view that, “Among multiple measures for online learner

success, learner satisfaction is an important measure” (p. 98). Analyzing students’ perceptions,

and ultimately satisfaction, of the inverted classroom model of instruction provides valuable

information on the students’ perceived success of the inverted classroom.

Research Questions

By identifying and analyzing students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of

instruction, the researcher will attempt to answer the following research questions in this study:

RQ1: What are students’ perceptions of their attitudes, feelings, and preferences towards

the inverted classroom model of instruction?

RQ2: What are students’ perceptions of the procedures, operations, methods, and

techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction?

RQ3: What are students’ perceptions of their acquisition of information and concepts

related to the course content in the inverted classroom model of instruction?

Hypotheses

1. The more the students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of instruction based

on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences, the more they will positively perceive the

procedures, operations, methods and techniques.


2. The more the students positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques

of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will positively perceive their

acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.

3. The more the students negatively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and

techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will negatively perceive

their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.

Assumptions, Limitations, and Scope

In this study, it is assumed the Development of Materials and Programs was taught using

an inverted classroom model of instruction based on the course design in the syllabus and the

students’ responses to the questions provided in this study. The study is limited because it only

considers two sections of the course during a single semester at a medium-sized university in

Virginia. Also, the course uses an alternative approach to the inverted classroom model of

instruction where the students are required to read assigned chapters in the textbook and then

actively participate in an inverted (flipped) discussion board. Class sessions are then centered on

project work and training facilitations that are derived from the readings and involve active

dialogue. The scope of the study includes students in the Development of Materials and

Programs (LTLE485) during the 2014 spring semester.

Significance of the Study

The analysis of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction will

provide valuable information to aid higher educators who are seeking to incorporate new

innovative ideas and resources to enhance education and improve transfer of learning. With the

results of this study, higher educators will be able to gather information concerning what


students think and feel about the inverted classroom model of instruction. The present study will

also be able to identify barriers to implementing the inverted classroom. By identifying the

perceived strengths and weaknesses of the course, the Development of Materials and Programs

inverted classroom may be able to foster a more supportive environment for the students.

Aside from supporting the students by understanding the implications for teaching and

learning, the study will benefit future facilitators of the Development of Materials and Programs

course. Future facilitators of the course will be able to review the results of students’ perceptions

regarding the inverted classroom, and then alter their instruction to increase the positive

attributes associated with the course. As a result of the teacher’s implementation of the inverted

classroom model of instruction, students’ academic achievement has the potential to increase.

For teachers implementing the traditional classroom model of instruction, the inverted classroom

model of instruction is a proven teaching strategy that will benefit all students. The inverted

classroom model of instruction has many features such as student-centered learning, active

learning, educational technology and blended learning. As a result, this research will help

increase awareness of the benefits of the inverted classroom model of instruction and provide

teachers with a rationale for implementing the model in order to ensure student success in the

classroom.

Definitions

A number of frequently used terms are defined in the following section as a point of

reference for this study. All of the following terms will be described and their relationship to the

study will be examined in further detail in later sections of this paper.


Student-Centered Learning: “Student-centered learning environments provide interactive,

complimentary activities that enable individuals to address their unique learning interests

and needs, examine content at multiple levels of complexity, and deepen understanding”

(Cubukcy, 2012, p. 51-52).

Blended Learning: “Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective

combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning,

and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course”

(Heinze & Procter, 2004, p. 12).

Learning Management System (LMS): “Learning management systems provide a secure

and highly structured online learning environment, supporting various types of

pedagogical approaches” (Tomberg, Laanpere, Ley, & Normak, 2013, p. 110).

Personal Learning Environment (PLE): “By contrast, when using Web 2.0 tools, a

student or teacher is able to build a personal learning environment (PLE), which gives

their owners high levels of choice and control over their learning activities” (Tomberg et

al., 2013, p. 110).

Inverted Classroom: An inverted style of the traditional pattern of teaching that utilizes

technology to introduce content to students outside of the classroom while assigning in-

class activities to engage students further inside the classroom (Strayer, 2012).

Now that key terms have been defined, the next section of this paper presents a review of

the literature, beginning with a look at eclectic instructional design and learning theories.

These theories will serve to explain and help illuminate the theoretical frameworks behind

the creation of instruction. This section will also explain various educational technologies.

Finally, the inverted classroom model of instruction will be examined in order to understand


the components of the model and provide advantages and challenges for teachers and

students.


Literature Review

In an attempt to understand students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of

instruction a review of literature was conducted. The following chapter includes the literature

review methodology, the conceptual framework, theoretical framework and a review of the

pertinent literature. Additional literature was used to provide background information and

context; however, the following section specifically addresses the variables and hypotheses

discussed in the first chapter.

Literature Methodology

To begin this review, several research databases were used to identify articles for

inclusion, including: Academic Search Complete, Education Databases EBSCO Combined

Search, ERIC, and Education Research Complete. The James Madison University library

website was used to select the relevant databases. Articles were eliminated from inclusion in the

review based on publishing date. Only articles between 2000 and 2013 were used. Specific

search words and phrases such as “inverted classroom,” “flipped classroom,” “blended learning,”

and “student-centered learning” were utilized. A combination of these different terms yielded

the results summarized in the following review. In addition to these research databases and

search words, the author also referenced several college level textbooks. These were used to

provide the initial idea for the study, as well as provide background information and context for

the author’s hypotheses.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 demonstrates the relationship between

instructional design, educational technology, and the inverted classroom model of instruction as


perceived by the researcher. This framework was developed based on extensive research

conducted on the inverted classroom model of instruction. Throughout the research, the

researcher found three common variables: instructional design, educational technology, and the

inverted classroom model of instruction. The inverted classroom model of instruction

incorporates various instructional design concepts and educational technologies to enhance

education and transfer of learning. Figure 1 provides the systematic organization of the three

variables and provides the primary focus of this study on the students’ perceptions regarding the

integration and interpretation of information.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Instructional Design

“Instructional design is the process of planning instruction, delivering instruction, and

assessing student learning” (Hamdani, Gharbaghi, Sumarni, & Sharifuddin, 2011, p. 1). The

models and theories incorporated in the instructional design process provide theoretical

implications for designing and implementing an inverted classroom model of instruction. A


study by Hamdani et al. (2011) discussed postmodernism instructional design approaches, types

and trends in three different domains: 1. instructional design is a diagrammatic or theoretical

process, 2. designers determine the process according to desired learning theories, and 3.

designers divide the process into three different orientations. The authors state that the type of

model used by designer is determined by their personal theoretical beliefs on – behaviorism,

cognitivism, and constructivism. The present study examines pertinent learning theories and

approaches for designing and implementing an inverted classroom model of instruction through

an eclectic design of instruction. Honebein and Sink (2012) advise that, “Practicing eclectic

instructional design benefits from a good understanding of learning theory and a willingness to

integrate some additional components into your instructional design process” (p. 26). The

process of eclectic instructional design encourages the designer to blend ideas from multiple

learning theories in order to construct a more significant learning experience than a course

designed from a single theoretical influence. Eclectic designers consider learning theories and

their associated methods as a toolbox to enhance instruction. The next sections will discuss the

various theoretical constructs of greatest relevance to the design and implementation of an

inverted classroom model of instruction.

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

A prominent theoretical construct that influences the design and implementation of an

inverted classroom model of instruction is Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD). ZPD has been defined as, “the distance between the actual developmental level as

determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as

determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable

peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The ZPD is not only about learning, but also about development


(Levykh, 2008). The ZPD is the difference between what a learner can do independently and

what they are capable of doing with targeted assistance. Heinze and Procter (2004) argue,

“Essentially the ZPD states that the learner has greater potential when developing in

collaboration with others of when supported by competent facilitators” (p. 237). Vygotsky

believed that learning could lead development under certain conditions created by the educator.

Lui (2012) states, “Instruction focused within each students’ ZPD is not too difficult or too easy,

but just challenging enough to help him or her develop new skills by building on ones that have

already been established” (p. 2). Students and teachers are part of this collaborative educational

inspiration. Students create their own knowledge and communicate it to others in a safe,

emotionally supportive environment. Once the students have created their own knowledge and

communicated it to others, the ZPD helps educators determine the mental functions that have

already developed and the functions that are still in process of developing (Levykh, 2008).

As an extension of this concept, Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) termed the word

scaffolding associated with the ZPD. Providing effective instructional scaffolding to the

functions that are still in process of developing assists the student’s mastery of the task in order

to complete the task on their own again. ZPD is influential while designing learning activities in

the inverted classroom model of instruction. The structure of the development of instruction

outside of the classroom and the face-to-face interactions within the classroom of the inverted

model need to support the student’s ZPD. Lui (2012) lists common practices among highly

affective teachers include tools and activities that: 1. Include clear goals and objectives, 2. Use

available space and appropriate resources, 3. Involve movement around the classroom, 4. Include

a range of individual, small group, and whole group instruction, and 5. Promote and encourage

inquiries and discussion (p. 7). As illustrated in Figure 2, locating the ZPD enables educators to


define the learner’s immediate needs and plan more targeted instruction for the whole class based

on the appropriate tasks difficulty. Lui (2012) argues, “Ultimately, aligning classroom teaching

strategies to students’ ZPD can help educators more effectively guide all students toward

achieving learning goals” (p. 2).

Figure 2. Locating the ZPD (Lui, 2012).

Constructivism

The significance of understanding constructivism while seeking to practice eclectic

instructional design is imperative to the purpose of this research. The notion that learners

construct their reality based upon their perception of experiences is grounded in the

constructivist theory of teaching and learning (Alonso, López, Manrique, & Viñes, 2005).

Constructivism supports students’ active and creative engagement in course content (Muniandy,

Mohammad, & Fong, 2007). From the constructivist perspective, the authors suggest that

through concrete experience, collaborative discourse, and reflection, learners are able to resolve


inner cognitive conflicts to construct knowledge. Through the implementation of an inverted

classroom, students first experience course content through an online component and then

actively and creatively engage in the same content during a face-to-face component. Fostering

these two experiences provides students the opportunity to self-regulate their learning outside of

the classroom while providing concrete experience, collaborative discourse and reflection during

the classroom time. In Figure 3, Bellefeuille (2006) illustrates a framework for developing

instructional design through a constructivist perspective.

Assumptions Values Instructional Design Principles

Instructional Strategies

Exemplars of a Constructivist

Learning Environment

Individuals interpret and

construct meaning

based on their experiences and evolved

beliefs

Collaboration

Personal autonomy

Generativity

Reflectivity

Active engagement

Personal relevance

Pluralism

Emphasize the affective domain of the learner

Make instruction personally relevant to

the learner

Help learners develop skills, attitudes, and

beliefs that support self-regulation of the learning process

Promote personal autonomy

Embed reason for learning into the learning activity

Interactive

Experiential

Independent

Direct

Indirect

Scaffolding

Embedding skills and knowledge in

holistic and realistic contexts

Authentic learning tasks

Multiple perspective building and

multiple representations

Collaborative learning activities

Figure 3: Framework for Developing Instructional Design through a Constructivist Perspective

(Bellefeuille, 2006).

Bellefeuille (2006), states,


“With this in mind, I submit that technology-mediated learning, or e-learning, not only

offers an inventive means by which to infuse constructivists principles (where learners

function as self-motivated, self-directed, interactive, collaborative participants in their

learning experience), but also serves to enhance the creation of effective constructivist

learning environments” (p. 87).

Rooted in the constructivist view, a study conducted by Ke and Kwak (2013) investigates

an alternative to teacher-directed instruction called student-centered learning.

Student-Centered Learning

Student-centered learning is rooted in the constructivist view that students construct

knowledge and the instructor facilitates the learning. Leading to perceptual changes in relation

to education, learning and teaching, Cubukcu (2012) affirms, “Student-centered learning

environments provide interactive, complimentary activities that enable individuals to address

their unique learning interests and needs, examine at multiple levels of complexity, and deepen

understanding” (p. 51-52). The author encourages teachers to ensure they allocate time for

activities to allow students to work on their own. Student ownership is essential for a student-

centered approach and will encourage in-depth understanding and intrinsic motivational

orientation.

Current research appears to validate a student-centered learning approach to designing

instruction. A study conducted by Ke and Kwak (2013) focused on technology-based student-

centered learning. The authors claim learner satisfaction is an important outcome measure for

learner success. Key values proposed when designing instruction based on student-centered

learning environment include: learner autonomy, authentic learning, learner relevance, and the


use of technology to scaffold learning. The authors found relevance to be the strongest

determinant of the online course satisfaction in a student-centered learning environment. While

attempting to provide theoretical implications for an inverted classroom model of instruction,

student-centered learning plays an integral role in improving skills such as critical thinking,

problem-solving and reflective thinking (Cubukcu, 2012). Another method of teaching and

learning design strongly emphasized in the constructivist view is Kolb’s (1984) Experiential

Learning Theory.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

As a well-accepted and efficient pedagogical model for learning, Kolb’s (1984)

Experiential Learning Theory has provided clear methods of teaching and learning design that

are strongly emphasized in the constructivist view (Abdulwahed & Nagy, 2009). Experiential

Learning Theory suggests that successful learners encounter four stages: concrete experience,

reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and experimentation. Abdulwahed and Nagy

(2009) advise, “Hence, the optimal learning takes place when learners have adequate balance of

these four stages during their learning experience” (p. 284). Figure 4 illustrates each of these

experiences in the construction of learning as shown by Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model.

Kolb’s (1984) model illustrates that learning requires individuals to first be introduced to the

course content through a concrete experience followed by a reflective observation of the

material. During the design and implementation of the inverted classroom model of instruction,

the concrete experience and reflective observation are encountered during the online component.

Next, Kolb (1984) suggests learners experience an abstract conceptualization followed by an

active experimentation. These experiences ultimately provide the means for learners to cultivate

attitudes, develop and practice skills, and promote understanding of the course content. Through


the face-to-face component of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the teacher serves as

a facilitator to support the conceptualization of the course content as well as provide relevant

classroom activities for active experimentation. By fostering each of the four stages

demonstrated in Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory in the inverted classroom, the

instructional strategies facilitate the enhancement of different learning preferences and

performance.

Figure 4: Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

Expanding upon his theory further, Kolb (1984) suggests individuals have different

perceptual or learning preferences. Werner and DeSimone (2012) describe, “A learning style

represents how an individual choice made during the learning process affects what information is

selected and how it is processed” (p. 90). Kolb (1984) identified four learning preferences in his

Experiential Learning Theory: divergent, assimilation, convergent, and accommodative. Each of

these learning preferences can be taken into account when assessing the different instructional

strategies for the inverted classroom. Werner and DeSimone (2012) define each of these

learning preferences:


Divergent-a combination of concrete experiences and reflective observation (feeling and

watching). Assimilation-a combination of abstract conceptualization and reflective

observation (thinking and watching). Convergent-a combination of abstract

conceptualization and active experimentation (thinking and doing). Accommodative-a

combination of concrete experience and active experimentation (feeling and doing)(p.

91).

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

The emphasized importance of observation and modeling of attitudes, behaviors, and

emotional reactions of others is illustrated by Bandura’s (1977) Social Cognitive Theory.

Bandura’s (1977) theory asserts individuals collect knowledge through observation, imitation

and modeling of others. Bandura (1977) argues that people form their own ideas of how a

behavior is performed through the observation of other’s behaviors. Once these new ideas are

formed they can use them as a guide for the future. The necessary elements for effective

learning to occur include attention, retention, reproduction and motivation (Bandura, 1977).

These invaluable elements structured by Bandura (1977) in the Social Cognitive Theory are

essential when designing and implementing the inverted classroom model of instruction.

A central concept of Bandura’s (1977) Social Cognitive Theory highlights the importance

of self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) believes that the key to enhancing learning is directly related to

an individual’s self-efficacy. In a study conducted by Zheng et al. (2009), the findings illustrate

the effects of self-efficacy as a mediator on learners’ problem solving. Zheng et al. (2009) state,

“the more confidant the participants were about themselves as learners, the higher the test scores

would be, the less time they spent in problem solving and the lower the cognitive load” (p. 800).


Similar to points on a triangle (shown in Figure 5), Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocal

determinism includes behavior, environment, and human behavior. Essentially, Bandura (1986)

proposed that the environment not only affects behavior, but personal factors and behaviors

influence the environment. These reciprocal and interconnected concepts represented are

necessary to recognize when introducing the inverted classroom of instruction through a blended

learning environment.

Figure 5: Bandura’s (1986) reciprocal determinism.

Gagné’s Conditions of Learning

Gagné’s (1985) Theory of Conditional Learning is a theoretical framework that consists

of three distinct components: 1) Taxonomy of learning outcomes, 2) Specific learning

conditions, and 3) Nine instructional events. The overarching premise stipulated by Gagné

(1985) indicates that different learning levels exist and therefore, different instructional methods


require focus on the corresponding level of learning. To address the needs of the learner, Gagné

(1985) developed the taxonomy of learning outcomes to break down human learned capabilities

into five abilities: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and motor

skills. Extending the theory further, Gagné (1985) addresses specific learning conditions.

Breaking down the conditions into internal and external conditions, Gagné (1985) focused on the

previous knowledge capabilities of learners and the current method of instruction provided to the

learner.

Gagné (1985) formulated a set of nine events deemed as effective instruction. Figure 6

addresses these nine events and the internal mental process undergone during the event. The

events are proposed to encourage the transfer of knowledge from perception through the various

stages of memory.

Figure 6: Gagné’s (1985) Nine Events of Instruction


While focusing on the instructional design strategies utilized in the inverted classroom

model of instruction, Gagné (1985) Conditions of Learning provides a theoretical framework to

understand individual’s abilities, their learning conditions, and focus on presenting the nine

events of instruction to enhance active learning.

Educational Technology

Research suggests digital video recording, digital media, and interactive Web pages have

enabled the advent of the inverted classroom model of instruction (Mason, Shuman, & Cook,

2013). Strayer (2012) emphasizes, “With the increased availability of the internet and computer

applications over the past 20 years, college and university professors have strengthened their

commitment to use computer technology to enhance classroom learning” (p. 171). Appropriate

theoretical implications of designing eclectic instructional design by blending various learning

theories have emerged along with the commitment to incorporate technology to enhance

learning. According to Alonso et al. (2005), a dysfunction exists between the profusion of

technological features and the scarcity of pedagogical principles in e-learning. Good educational

practice is governed by pedagogical principles and good educational practice in e-learning is

represented by the instructional technology. The following are pertinent instructional technology

components of the inverted classroom model of instruction found in the research.

Blended Learning Environment

After reviewing various theoretical constructs, a deeper understanding of a blended

learning environment of an inverted classroom model of instruction is essential. According to

Puzziferro and Shelton (2008), “Developing or creating an online course is a highly complex and

multifaceted process” (p. 119). The inverted classroom centers on providing course content


through multimedia channels outside of class. With the rapid advancement of technology, an

important issue during the development of an inverted classroom requires flexibility of the

instructional framework. Puzziferro and Shelton (2008) suggest, “The course production

framework must also be flexible enough to adapting to changes in technology, student and

faculty evolving expectations, new research in the field of online pedagogy, and curricular

changes” (p. 121). Research suggests strong pedagogy and instructional design as the core

principles to enhance learning (Kolb, 1984; Bandura, 1977; Mayer 2001; Gagné, 1965). As

Silberman (2006) states, “It is through the blending of high-tech and high-touch that an active

trainer can create memorable learning experiences that extend far beyond the hours spent either

in a classroom or in front of a computer screen” (p. 203).

In order to enhance education and transfer of learning, a successful implementation of a

blended learning environment requires structuring the face-to-face and online components so that

they coherently reinforce one another (Strayer, 2012). Positive aspects of implementing a

successful blended learning environment are: flexibility, positive interaction with professors,

independent learning, authenticity, engaging various learning preferences, and a positive social

presence (Napier, Dekhane, & Smith, 2011). Two elements of instructional technology used in a

blended learning environment are learning management systems and personal learning

environments.

Learning Management Systems

Technology-enhanced learning in formal education is assisted by the aid of institutional

learning management systems (Tomber, et al., 2013). The authors identify a learning

management system (LMS) as a secure and highly structured online learning environment. The


authors state, “Modern learning management systems provide teachers and learners with a set of

tools for sharing learning resources, communicating within a study group, course enrollment,

assignments, tests, assessments, activity monitoring, and other types of learning or course

management activities” (p. 110). Learning management systems support various types of

pedagogical approaches and provide the inverted classroom model of instruction tools for

success.

Personal Learning Environment

Tomber et al. (2013) state, “Highly structured, top-down managed hierarchies in an LMS

induce highly structured pedagogical behavior, which cannot be changed by the students. In

contrast, in a personal learning environment the learner uses bottom-up design: The learners are

free to adapt the system for their tasks” (p. 115). Personal learning environments have been

adopted by learners and teachers, which gives the owners high level of choice and control over

the learning activities. New types of web-based tools such as blogs and wikis are becoming

increasingly popular (Tomber et al., 2013). Shifting from the teacher-centered learning

management system to the learner-centered personal learning environment provides the learner

with freedom of choice and supports the constructivist approach as well as the self-regulation of

learners. The authors express further, “The requirement for combining the LMS and PLE

functionalities stems from the different kinds of affordances they offer. While LMS has more

affordances for course management, Web 2.0 tools and social media have more affordances for

individual expression of students, self-directed learning, expression of ideas, and group

collaboration” (p. 111). For the purpose of this study, review of one of the Web 2.0 tools

considered in an inverted classroom model of instruction is discussed next.


Blogs

In a study conducted by Do and Demir (2013), the authors state, “Blogs have evolved

from simple online diaries to communication tools with the capacity to engage people in

collaboration, knowledge sharing, reflection and debate” (p. 1335). The inverted classroom

model of instruction incorporates blogs as a technology-enhanced learning component. Blogs

empower students and can act as constructive repositories of the students’ reflections (Do &

Demir, 2013). Ongoing, prompt feedback of blogs creates a platform to discuss the students’

own learning and redesign of learning activities. The authors proclaim, “In this study we have

concluded that blogs can be used for students to reflect on the learning theme, to explain ideas, to

give information about their own learning and expectations” (p. 1342). The study proved that

blogs allow students to construct their own knowledge and can be used as a learning instrument

in an inverted classroom model of instruction.

Inverted Classroom

Mason, Shuman and Cook (2013) describe, “In an inverted classroom, course content is

disseminated outside the classroom through traditional formats such as assigned reading and

homework problems and through new formats such as video lectures, PowerPoint presentations,

and Web-based tutorials” (p. 430). The materials learned outside the classroom are further

discussed and applied face-to-face with an instructor in a classroom. Figure 7 illustrates the

difference between the traditional classroom and the flipped classroom (inverted classroom).

The authors mention three primary motivations for using an inverted classroom: 1. Frees class

time for interactive activities, 2. Allows an educator to present course content in several different


formats, and so engage the students’ various learning preferences, and 3. Encourages students to

become self-learners (Mason, Shuman, & Cooke, 2013, p. 430).

Figure 7. Traditional Classroom Model of Instruction compared to the Flipped Classroom

(Inverted Classroom) Model of Instruction

In another study conducted by Enfield (2013), the author mentions advantages for

teachers and students of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The advantages for the

teachers for incorporating an inverted classroom model of instruction include: providing video

lessons that students could watch as many times as needed greatly reduced the need for repetitive

instruction and the videos also provide the department with the option of providing the same core

instruction to all students taking the course, regardless of the instructor. Advantages for students

include: Most students found instructional videos helpful, engaging, and appropriately

challenging, they appreciated the ability to move through the instruction at their own pace and

found note taking, answering questions provided, and working along with videos all effective

strategies for learning the content provided in the videos, most students found regular quizzes to


be a strong motivation to keep up with the instructional videos that were assigned, and students

also reported that the in-class activities were engaging.

Problems with implementing an inverted classroom include: 1. Time-consuming, 2.

Online learning may frustrate some students, 3. Discrepancy in the literature about the

appropriateness of an inverted classroom for different course levels (Mason, Shuman, & Cooke,

2013, p. 430). Additional challenges addressed by Enfield (2013) include: sufficient time must

be spent developing the videos or finding pre-existing materials that sufficiently cover the

content, technical issues should be addressed, and ensure that the instructional materials comply

with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 508. While students are relatively

understanding of mistakes and pauses in face-to-face instruction, they tend to expect

instructional videos to be edited so that there are no errors or unneeded pauses, and in-class

activities also need to be well planned and this takes a great deal of time.

Mason, Shuman, & Cooke (2013) studied the effectiveness of the inverted classroom by

comparing content coverage, quiz and exam performance, and student perception of teaching,

learning, and the inverted classroom format. The authors used a survey to evaluate course

organization, instructor’s use of class time, attitude and teaching style of the instructor,

effectiveness of exams and reports, students’ personal effort and approximate number of hours

per week spent studying for the course. The authors found that students recognized that the new

format required self-discipline and necessitated some adjustment to their study habits (Mason et

al., 2013, p. 433). The authors also found that the inverted classroom model of instruction

allowed the instructor to cover more course material.


The literature review provides theoretical implications and background information on

the inverted classroom model of instruction. As previously mentioned, utilizing instructional

design, learning theories and educational technology in the review of literature reveals the

advantages and challenges of designing and implementing an inverted classroom model of

instruction. It is the purpose of this study to focus on discovering students’ perceptions of the

inverted classroom model of instruction. In the sections to follow, the methodology of the study

is addressed, including the design and analysis of the data collection process.


Methodology

Although, previous literature maintains educators are focusing their efforts on new

innovative instructional designs and resources to enhance education and increase transfer of

learning, minimal research on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of

instruction creates barriers for educators to implement an effective inverted classroom. Past

research indicates advantages and challenges of designing and implementing an inverted

classroom model of instruction. The current study aims to unveil students’ perceptions of the

inverted classroom model of instruction and broaden the potential to understand the impact this

model will have on future academics. The following section describes the design of the study,

sample population, data collection instrument, procedures, and analysis as well as the threats to

the study. Since the inverted classroom model of instruction is a relatively new model, the

researcher has identified the independent variables in this study as: Instructional Design,

Educational Technology, and the Inverted Classroom Model of Instruction. The dependent

variable in this study is represented by three variables related to students’ perceptions of the

inverted classroom model of instruction.

Research Design

The overarching goal of this study is to analyze students’ perceptions of the inverted

classroom model of instruction. Specifically, this study was designed to empirically test the

impact of the inverted classroom’s instructional strategies on students’ attitudes, feelings, and

preferences, the procedures, operations methods and techniques, and the students’ perceptions of

the acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content in an inverted classroom

model of instruction in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course in the


Human Resource Development (HRD) minor at James Madison University in Virginia.

LTLE485 is designed to provide students with the basic skills necessary to design and develop

performance-based training programs and courses. LTLE485 is the only inverted classroom in

the HRD minor and has been taught as an inverted classroom for the past three years. Although

the course is offered during the fall and spring semesters of the academic year, due to the scope

of the research the researcher is only collecting data in the middle of the spring 2014 semester.

By identifying and analyzing students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of

instruction, the researcher will attempt to answer the following research questions in this study:

RQ1: What are students’ attitudes, feelings, and preferences towards the inverted

classroom model of instruction?





The researcher predicts the following research outcomes:

1. The more the students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of instruction based

on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences, the more they will positively perceive the

procedures, operations, methods and techniques.

2. The more the students positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques

of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will positively perceive their

acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.


3. The more the students negatively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and

techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will negatively perceive

their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.

The research questions are addressed using a mixed-methods survey approach to obtain

quantitative and qualitative data. Mixed-methods research helped clarify and explain the

relationships found between the variables while exploring those relationships more in depth and

authenticating the concluding relationship discovered (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012).

Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained through the use of an online electronic survey

consisting of a series of eleven open-ended, multiple choice, Likert-type scales, and rating scale

questions through the James Madison University sponsored Qualtrics online survey database

system to create and distribute the survey. Appendix B illustrates the full survey instrument.

The online survey was distributed to the participants enrolled in the Development of Materials

and Programs course via an announcement on Canvas after being approved by the Institutional

Review Board. The approved request is found in Appendix A. The announcement included a

consent form with a cover letter requesting voluntary consent to participate in the survey, as well

as a direct link to the Qualtrics survey.

Throughout the literature review, several qualitative investigations examined the impact

of instructional strategies on learning outcomes and goals (Gedik et al., 2012; Ishtaiwa &

Abulibdeh, 2012; Muniandy et al., 2007; Wang, 2010). A qualitative investigation allows the

researcher to examine the relationship between each essential variable more inclusively. The

confirmatory quantitative investigation will then be useful while examining the conclusions

acquired by the qualitative investigation and which will ultimately be combined to interpret the

overall results.


Instrumentation

As previously mentioned, a mixed method triangulation approach was used to discover

students’ perceptions of the LTLE485 inverted classroom model of instruction. The primary

data collection instrument used in the evaluation was a survey designed by the researcher. Russ-

Eft and Preskill (2013) describe several advantages of using a survey as a research data

collection method. An advantage the authors state is, “The same questions are presented in the

same manner to all respondents, with no interpretation on the part of the evaluator, thus reducing

the chance of evaluator bias” (p. 276).

A web-based survey was chosen to obtain data from students in the spring 2014

LTLE485 course. Focusing on the research questions and variables of the study, the researcher

provided a series of eleven open-ended, multiple choice, Likert-type scales, and rating scale

questions. The first three questions asked demographic questions about the students’ current

level at James Madison University, major, and gender. The next two questions pertain to

students’ use of educational technology and previous experience in an inverted classroom. The

next three questions consisted of a four point Likert-type scale based on the three research

questions of the study. The last three questions consisted of an overall satisfaction scale and

open-ended questions about the students’ favorite and least favorite experience in the inverted

classroom model of instruction. Once the researcher developed the survey, two research

professors, Dr. Jane Thall and Dr. Noorie Brantmeier, at James Madison University examined

the survey. The survey was also piloted to 3 students in a first-year research methods course.

Once the professors evaluated the survey, the researcher made corresponding changes and then

provided a copy of the survey to the Institutional Review Board along with the research protocol.


Once all changes had been made to the survey and instrument validity and reliability had been

determined, the survey was sent to a purposive sample via an anonymous Qualtrics survey link to

an inclusive list of students’ in the LTLE485 course.

Sample Population

Participants in the study were undergraduate students in the Development of Materials

and Programs (LTLE485) in the Human Resource Development minor program at James

Madison University during the spring 2014 semester. JMU is a public, coeducational, master’s

level university located in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The HRD minor at JMU is an 18-credit hour,

technically oriented program that engages students from various disciplines. The program

consists on average of about 300 students who want to develop instructional, analytical, and

leadership skills.

The Development of Materials and Programs course is the capstone course in the HRD

minor program in the College of Education. Students enrolled in the course are assumed to have

all pre-requisites courses for the minor. The course is described as dissimilar to previous courses

because the students take a more active role in the teaching and learning process implemented by

the inverted classroom model of instruction. The course is designed to provide students with the

basic and necessary skills to design and develop skills-based training programs and courses. A

variety of instructional methods are used throughout the semester including: lecture, small group

interaction, total group interaction, simulation, reading assignments, invited guests and other

methodological approaches. After completing assigned readings, students are required to

complete “warm-ups.” The warm-ups are brief reflections that provide the student with the

opportunity to reflect on salient aspects of the prior week’s class session and guide their critique,


analysis, and synthesis of the readings. Students are required to post their reflections on Canvas

before the class to provide the professor and teaching assistant the opportunity to read the

responses and respond to any areas the students may struggle with or need additional

clarification. Class sessions center on project work and training facilitations that are derived

from the readings and involve active dialogue. Through an inverted classroom model of

instruction, warm-ups, group facilitation activities, projects and assessments require the students

to synthesize and present course content. For the purpose of this study, a purposive sample of 63

undergraduate students enrolled in LTLE485 during the spring 2014 semester participated in the

study because of their interaction in the inverted classroom model of instruction.

Data Collection Procedures

The quantitative and qualitative data collected for this study were gathered from a series

of eleven open-ended, multiple choice, Likert-type scales, and rating scale questions. The online

survey was distributed to the participants enrolled in the Development of Materials and Programs

course via and announcement in Canvas. The announcement included a consent form with a

cover letter requesting voluntary consent to participate in the survey, as well as a direct link to

the Qualtrics survey.

Throughout this study, the researcher took into consideration various ethical issues. The

AHRD Handbook states, “Human Resource Development is based on more than knowledge,

skills, and self-awareness. It is also based on values. These values include honesty and respect

for the rights of others” (p. 19). The researcher took into consideration general ethical standards

developed by Academy of Human Resource Development (1999-2000) which include:

respecting others, research, and evaluation in a professional context. The researcher took into


consideration the respect of the students by providing a voluntary consent form attached to the

announcement made in Canvas. While researching and evaluating the data, the researcher took

into consideration designing, conducting, and reporting the research and evaluation in

accordance with recognized standards of research competence and ethics. The researcher took

into consideration the rights and welfare of the students affected by the study and did not collect

any identifying information attached to the survey. Statistical information was only analyzed for

reporting purposes in this research project.

The Institutional Review Board approved the human research review request on October

21, 2013. As stated on the approved request, data were stored and analyzed within Qualtrics, the

online survey instrument being utilized for this research study. The survey being issued was

anonymous, in that there was no identifying information attached to any of the research

questions being asked. Furthermore, any statistical information analyzed for reporting purposes

was stored on a desktop computer that was password protected, with any statistical documents

password protected as well. A back-up copy of these documents was kept on a portable hard

drive, which was also password protected. The researcher was the only individual who had

access to this data, which remained within a password-protected electronic file once the research

had been completed. At the end of the study, all records were destroyed.

Data Analysis

As previously mentioned, the research questions were addressed using a mixed-methods

approach to analyze quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data from the web-based

survey questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics through Qualtrics. While analyzing

the quantitative data, a description of the data will be given, specific relationships will be


examined, and frequency distributions will be illustrated. Qualitative data adds depth and detail

to the quantitative data. Qualitative data from the open-ended survey questions were analyzed

by deriving categories from the current data set. Due to the scope and boundaries of the

research, the data analysis process was not guided by any preexisting schema or theoretical

literature. Russ-Eft and Preskill (2013) state, “When you want to see how the data can be

organized without any overarching framework, then you would use content analysis to

inductively review the text and develop specific categories” (p. 370).

Validity, Reliability, and Generalization

Fraenkel et al. (2012) state, “Validity is the most important idea to consider when

preparing or selecting an instrument for use” (p. 147). The authors define validity as the means

to which inferences about the research can be made (p. 147). The two types of validity that

impact the implications made from research are: external validity and internal validity. External

validity refers to both population and ecological generalizability. According to Fraenkel et al.

(2012), “The whole notion of science is built on the idea of generalizing. Every science seeks to

find basic principles or laws that can be applied to a great variety of situations and, in the case of

social sciences, to a great many people” (p. 103). The authors describe two factors that need to

be addressed when considering generalizability: population generalizability and ecological

generalizability (p. 103-105). Ensuring the sample represents the population and can be

extended to other settings is essential in analyzing external validity and generalizability. For the

intent of this study, a purposive sample was chosen because of their experience in the inverted

classroom model of instruction. This is a limitation because it lacks the evidence to generalize

the data results to a larger population.


Fraenkel et al. (2012) define internal validity as, “any relationship observed between two

or more variables should be unambiguous as to what it means rather than being due to

‘something else’” (p. 166). In order to establish a correlation between the variables in the

research, threats to the internal validity need to be addressed. Possible threats to the internal

validity of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction have been

carefully evaluated. The biggest threat to subject characteristics within this study revolves

around learner’s autonomy and self-efficacy.


Data Analysis

This study employed a mixed methodology research design utilizing quantitative and

qualitative data collection procedures to identify students’ perceptions of an inverted classroom

model of instruction. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from an eleven question,

web-based survey created with Qualtrics. The survey was distributed via Canvas to students in

both sections of the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course for the spring

2014 semester at James Madison University. The quantitative data provides baseline data that is

wide in breath, while the qualitative data provides data deep in scope. Students were asked to

complete eight quantitative questions and three qualitative questions, with one of the qualitative

questions only asking for demographic information. Of the 63 students who were asked to

participate, 40 students started the survey and 38 students completed the survey. The response

rate was 60 percent. The next section will discuss the process by which the data were generated,

gathered, and recorded.

Procedures

In order to establish validity, the researcher designed a mixed method data collection

framework, which employed two different data collection methodologies. Data were generated

from an eleven question, web-based survey using Qualtrics created by the researcher. The

survey was distributed via Canvas to students in both sections of the 2014 spring LTLE485

course. All data obtained throughout the duration of this research study were collected and

stored within the Qualtrics survey management system. The researcher was the only individual

with access to the user name and password to this information, and no data were collected in any

other fashion. The researcher downloaded the data directly from Qualtrics, and these were stored


on a password-protected hard drive. Statistical analysis was conducted through the survey

management system. The quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while a

thematic analysis was conducted for the qualitative results. The next section will discuss the

survey results and findings from the data collection.

Results and Findings

This section reports the results and findings from the mixed methodology research

design. The results and findings of this research consist of two parts. The first part is the

analysis of the quantitative data collected from eight of the eleven questions on the web-based

survey including one of the qualitative questions with regard to demographic information. The

second part is a thematic analysis of the qualitative data collected from the last two questions on

the survey.

The first five questions presented on the web-based survey report demographic responses.

While demographic information did not play a role in the formulation of research questions and

hypotheses for this study, utilizing them in the data collection provided the researcher with

further insight into potential trends regarding beliefs about students’ perceptions of an inverted

classroom model of instruction.

Question 1. The first question of the survey asked participants to select their current

student level at James Madison University. The levels consisted of Freshman, Sophomore,

Junior, Senior, and Other. The response rate (n=40) to their current student level elicited a

distinct trend, whereas the majority of the participants were Seniors (98%) with only one

individual at the Junior level (3%).


Question 2: The second question of the survey asked participants to state their current

major at James Madison University. Eleven majors emerged from the response rate (n=40).

Figure 8 provides a bar graph of the majors represented from the survey. Psychology

represented the largest demographic with nine students indicating their current major was

Psychology (22.5%). Communication Studies and Hospitality each were represented by eight

students (20%). Health Services Administration, Marketing, and Writing, Rhetoric and

Technical Communication (WRTC) were each represented by three students (0.08%).

Communication Sciences and Disorders, Business Management, Public Policy and

Administration, Sociology and Studio Art were each represented by one student (0.3%).

PsychologyCommunication Studies

HospitalityHealth Services Administration

MarketingWRTC

Communication Sciences and DisordersBusiness Management

Public Policy and AdministrationSociologyStudio Art

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Majors

Response Rate

Figure 8. Participants’ Majors at James Madison University

Question 3: The third question asked the participants to indicate their gender. The

participants could either respond as Male, Female, or Prefer not to respond. Female participants

made up the majority of the participants with thirty-three of the participants indicated they were


Female (83%), while only seven indicated they were Male (17%) and none of the students chose

not to respond. Figure 9 illustrates the gender demographics of the participants.

18%

83%

Gender

Male Female Prefer not to respond

Figure 9. Participants’ Gender

Question 4: The fourth question sought to understand how participants accessed the

Internet for educational purposes. Participants were allowed to respond with multiple answers.

Figure 10 provides a bar graph of the results. Thirty-nine students indicated they access the

Internet for educational purposes using their personal desktop or laptop (98%). While the

majority of responses indicated participants access the Internet with their personal desktop or

laptop, an additional fourteen responses indicated participants access the Internet for educational

purposes on their smart phone (35%). Thirteen more responses indicated participants also access

the Internet using a university desktop or laptop (33%) and nine indicated using a tablet (23%).


Personal Desk-top or Laptop

University Desktop or

Laptop

Smart Phone Tablet Other0

102030405060708090

100

How Students Access the Internet

Figure 10. How participants access the Internet for educational purposes.

Question 5: The fifth and last demographic question asked the participants if they have

ever been involved in an inverted classroom prior to the Development of Materials and Programs

(LTLE485) course. Figure 11 illustrates participants’ previous involvement with an inverted

classroom. Twenty-three participants (58%) indicated they had previously been involved in an

inverted classroom while ten participants (25%) indicated they had not previously been involved

in an inverted classroom. Seven participants (17%) indicated they did not know if they had ever

been in an inverted classroom previously.


58%25%

17%

Involvement in Previous Inverted Classroom

Yes No I don't know

Figure 11. Participants’ involvement with an inverted classroom.

Following the demographic questions, a series of three Likert scale questions were presented to

the participants. The three Likert scale questions directly correlate with this study’s research

questions and hypotheses. Each of the questions were rated with a response of either strongly

disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree, and were coded with numbers one through four,

respectively. The responses to each of the three questions were analyzed through the use of

Qualtrics’ statistics software, recording the mean, variance, and standard deviation for each

question regarding students’ perceptions of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The

responses to each of the questions were analyzed individually, and tables displaying the

averages, as well as other descriptive statistics, are provided below in tables and bar graphs.

Question 6: The sixth question on the survey provided participants with a series of four

statements and asked participants to indicate whether they agree or disagree based on their

attitudes, feelings, and preferences of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The four


statements were: 1. I enjoy learning course content outside of the classroom, 2. I enjoy the online

discussion boards, 3. I enjoy engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with the

help of an instructor, and 4. Overall, I enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction. Figure

12 presents a bar graph that illustrates the responses and Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of

the data. Thirty-three participants indicated they strongly agree or agree they enjoy learning

course content outside of the classroom, while seven do not enjoy learning course content

outside of the classroom. Fifteen participants indicated they enjoy the online discussion, while

twenty-five indicated they do not enjoy the online discussion. A majority of participants

indicated they agree or strongly agree they enjoy engaging in hands-on activities inside of the

classroom with the help of an instructor. Thirty-six participants indicated they overall enjoy the

inverted classroom model of instruction, while only four do not enjoy the inverted classroom

model of instruction.

Overall, I enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction.

I enjoy engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with the help of an instructor.

I enjoy the online discussion boards.

I enjoy learning course content outside of the classroom.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Attitudes, Feelings, a nd Preferences

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree


Figure 12. Participants’ attitudes, feelings, and preferences of an inverted classroom model of

instruction (n=40).

Table 1

Participants’ attitudes, feelings, and preferences of an inverted classroom model of instruction

Descriptive Statistic

I enjoy learning course content outside of the

classroom.

I enjoy the online

discussion boards.

I enjoy engaging in hands-on

activities inside of the classroom with the help of

an instructor.

Overall, I enjoy the inverted


Mean 3.00 2.33 3.5 3.08

Variance 0.46 0.74 0.31 0.38

Standard Deviation 0.68 0.86 0.55 0.62

Total Responses 40 40 40 40

Question 7: The seventh question on the survey provided participants with a series of

four statements and asked participants to indicate whether they agree or disagree based on the

procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an inverted classroom model of instruction.

The four statements were: 1. Technology is an effective way to deliver course content outside of

the classroom, 2. Online discussion boards enhance learning, 3. Hands on activities in class are

an effective way to enhance learning and engagement, and 4. Overall, the inverted classroom

model of instruction enhances learning. Figure 13 presents a bar graph that illustrates the

responses and Table 2 provides descriptive statistics of the data. Thirty-eight participants

indicated they strongly agree or agree that technology is an effective way to deliver course

content outside of the classroom while only two indicated they disagreed. Only nineteen


participants indicated they agree or strongly agree that online discussion boards enhance

learning, while twenty-one participants indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed. One

hundred percent of the participants indicated they either agreed or strongly agreed that hands on

activities in class are an effective way to enhance learning and engagement. Thirty-five

participants indicated they overall feel the inverted classroom model of instruction enhances

learning based on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques while only five disagree or

strongly disagree.

Overall, the inverted classroom model of instruction enhances learning.

Hands on activities in class are an effective way to enhance learning and engagement.

Online discussion boards enhance learning.

Technology is an effective way to deliver course content outside of the classroom.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Procedures, Opera tions, Methods and Techniques


Figure 13. Participants’ views on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an

inverted classroom model of instruction (n=40).


Table 2.

Participants’ views on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an inverted



Technology is an effective way to deliver course content outside

of the classroom.

Online discussion

boards enhance learning.

Hands on activities in class are an effective way to enhance

learning and engagement.

Overall, the inverted

classroom model of instruction

enhances learning.

Mean 3.33 2.38 3.48 3.00

Variance 0.33 0.75 0.26 0.36



Question 8: The eighth question on the survey provided participants with a series of four

statements and asked participants to indicate whether they agree or disagree based on the content

presented in an inverted classroom model of instruction. The four statements were: 1. I

effectively learn the course content outside of the classroom, 2. I effectively learn the course

content through online discussion boards, 3. I effectively learn the course content through in-

class activities with the help of an instructor, and 4. Overall, I effectively learn the content in the

inverted classroom model of instruction. Figure 14 presents a bar graph that illustrates the

responses and Table 3 provides descriptive statistics of the data. Twenty-nine participants out of

thirty-eight responses indicated they agree or strongly agree that they effectively learn the course

content outside of the classroom while nine participants either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Only fifteen participants indicated they effectively learning the course content through online


discussion boards while twenty-three students disagree or strongly disagree they do not learn the

course content through online discussion boards. One hundred percent of the participants

indicated they either agree or strongly agree that they effectively learn the course content through

in-class activities with the help of an instructor. Thirty-three participants indicated they learn the

course content in the inverted classroom model of instruction while only five participants

disagreed.

Overall, I effectively learn the content in the inverted classroom model of instruction.

I effectively learn the course content through in-class activities with the help of an instructor.

I effectively learn the course content through online discussion boards.

I effectively learn the course content outside of the classroom.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Co urse Content


Figure 14. Participants’ views on learning the course content in an inverted classroom model of

instruction (n=38).


Table 3.

Participants’ views on learning the course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction.


I effectively learn the course content outside

of the classroom.

I effectively learn the course content through

online discussion

boards

I effectively learn the course content through

in-class activities with the help of an

instructor

Overall, I effectively learning the

content in the inverted

classroom model of instruction

Mean 2.87 2.34 3.47 3.03

Variance 0.44 0.66 0.26 0.30



Question 9: The ninth question asked the participants to rank their overall satisfaction

level of the inverted classroom model of instruction using a draggable slider scale of one being

very unsatisfied and ten being very satisfied. Participants ranked their satisfaction level between

a four and a ten with the average value being 7.24 (n=38). The standard deviation was 1.34.

Figure 15 represents the participants’ overall satisfaction.

Figure 15. Participants’ overall satisfaction (n=38).


Qualitative Findings

Through the implementation of qualitative research, a word-based analysis and thematic

analysis present a number of suggestions regarding how students perceive the inverted model of

instruction. The following three key variables were investigated about students’ perceptions of

the inverted classroom model of instruction: 1. Their attitudes, feelings, and preferences of the

inverted classroom model of instruction, 2. The procedures, operations, methods, and techniques

of the inverted class model of instruction, and 3. Their acquisition of information and concepts

related to course content. Themes were developed based on qualitative codes that allowed the

researcher to identify commonalities and differences among students’ perceptions of the

strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction as they relate to the

three key variables; therefore, a thematic analysis was conducted to help determine the elements

where participants positively or negatively viewed the inverted classroom model of instruction.

The following sections identify and describe the word-count analysis the researcher first

evaluated for each qualitative question and identify and describe both implicit and explicit ideas

within the data. The results for the thematic analysis are organized under the three key variables

identified previously. This process served as a way to begin categorizing the data and then

further capturing the complexities of meaning within the textual data. A number of themes and

sub-themes were identified in relation to each variable and are reported in the following section.

Question 10: The tenth question was an opened ended question that asked participants

what they thought were the major strengths of the inverted classroom model of instruction.

Thirty-three participants responded. Table 4 illustrates the ten most frequently used words.

Table 4.


Common words found in participants’ view of the strengths of the inverted classroom model of

instruction.

Word Frequency

Learn 20

Experience 7

Work 7

Student 6

Class 5

Hand 5

Better 4

Classroom 4

Time 4

Table 5.

Participants’ perceptions of the strengths of the inverted classroom model of instruction based on

their attitudes, feelings, and preferences and thematic analysis (n=33).

Attitudes, Feelings,

and Preferences.

Strengths Theme

Gain better experience. Experience

Autonomy. Autonomy

Convenience to students. Convenient

Different experience than sitting through a lecture. ExperienceYou can complete work on your own time – flexibility with schedule.

Autonomy


You are more in charge of how well you learn: the responsibility is on you. Autonomy

I like the dynamic aspect. ExperienceI can speak about my experience in interviews (related to real world situation projects). Experience

Diverse learning experiences. Experience

Able to complete assignments on your own time. AutonomyFreedom to do your work at your won place and learning to motivate yourself, not be forced to complete work. Autonomy

Students learn time management. Autonomy

Can apply their own learning techniques. Autonomy

Convenient. Convenient

Good feedback from each facilitation. Experience

Independent work. Autonomy

You don’t have to go to class. Autonomy

Independence and autonomy. Autonomy

I like that the professor is not just lecturing. Experience

Makes class less uptight. Experience

Independent learning and project based learning. Autonomy

You can do the learning and work at your own pace. Autonomy

It allows students to work more independently. Autonomy

More flexible approach to learning. Experience

Table 6.

Participants’ perceptions of the strengths of the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques

of the inverted classroom model of instruction and thematic analysis (n=33).

Procedures, Operations,

Methods, and

Techniques

Strengths Theme

Have better discussion. DiscussionThey (students) are not just sitting through a lecture, but presenting the material to enhance learning.

Non-lecture


I like asynchronous style, where I have objectives/guidelines and times by which to submit my work.

Non-lecture

Interactive group learning. Interactive

Discussion Discussion

Hands on for the students. InteractiveEngaging activities outside of the classroom make you think and apply what you learn in the classroom. Interactive

When teachers create an online design that is interactive using videos that you can actively participate in, students tend to retain much more information.

Interactive

More hands on, so I learn better because I am active learner. InteractiveBy preparing presentations, I learn more about what I am presenting on because I do a lot of research and rehearsing. Interactive

By doing projects (like this client one), I feel like I really get to apply what I learn in the classroom and book into a real world situation.

Interactive

I like that it allows us to come to class with more specific questions on what we don’t understand. Interactive

I like asynchronous style, where I have objectives/guidelines and times by which to submit my work. Practical

Hands on activities in class instead of lectures. InteractiveI feel like hands on experience in and outside of class are helping me learn more than I have learned in most of the HRD courses I have taken.

Interactive

You get hands on experience. Interactive

Ability to retain information through active learning. Interactive

Real world challenges and experience. PracticalPractical applications are evident because of project based learning. Practical

Practical application of materials instead of tests on abstract concepts. Practical

Diverse learning experiences. Experience

Table 7.


Participants’ perceptions of the strengths of the acquisition of information of concepts related to

course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction and thematic analysis (n=33).

Acquisition of

Information and

Concepts Related to

Course Content

Strengths ThemeInverted classrooms give the students the ability to learn the material more effectively. Learn

When teachers create an online design that is interactive using videos that you can actively participate in, students tend to retain much more information.

Learn

More hands on, so I learn better because I am active learner. LearnBy preparing presentations, I learn more about what I am presenting on because I do a lot of research and rehearsing. Learn

By doing projects (like this client one), I feel like I really get to apply what I learn in the classroom and book into a real world situation.

Learn

I feel like hands on experience in and outside of class are helping me learn more than I have learned in most of the HRD courses I have taken.

Learn

Ability to retain information through active learning. Learn

Question 11. The eleventh question was an opened ended questions that asked

participants what they thought were the major weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of

instruction.

Table 8.

Common words found in participants’ view of the weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of

instruction.

Word Frequency

Class(room) 12

Discussion 12

Student 10


Work 8

Board 6

Much 5

Post 5

Teach 5

Sometime 4

Table 9.

Participants’ perceptions of the weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction based

on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences and thematic analysis (n=27).

Attitudes, Feelings,

and Preferences.

Weaknesses ThemeNot easy to adapt to suddenly because so many classes are primarily lecture based. Adaptability

People argue against inverted classrooms because the professor does little teaching, which is what we are paying them to do. Many don’t realize the benefits of the inverted classrooms.

Role of Teacher

Most are likely to do the work and that’s all. Lack of Motivation

Inverted classrooms do not challenge the learner. Lack of Interest

Distractions. Lack of Interest

Zone out for others during lecture. Lack of Motivation

Forgetting when things are due because lack of communication hurts my motivation.

Lack of Community

You can BS through the online portion, or just disregard the readings and not do work that isn’t graded.

Lack of Motivation

Work can be slacked. Lack of Motivation

Lessens classroom community. Lack of Community

Lessens motivation. Lack of Motivation

Students do not take it seriously. Lack of


Interest

I sometimes feel lost in the mix. Lack of Motivation

The student has to be prepared. Lack of Interest

I don’t like teaching myself things when I can have a teacher teach me.

Lack of Motivation

Table 10.

Participants’ perceptions of the weaknesses of the procedures, operations, methods, and

techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction and thematic analysis (n=27).

Procedures, Operations,

Methods, and

Techniques

Weaknesses Theme

Not always getting feedback right away. Lack of Feedback

Face to face interaction lacks. Lack of Interaction

It fills up Canvas/Blackboard with too much information sometimes and it becomes hard to keep up.

Too much Information

Mandatory discussion boards with specific amounts of posts hurt my motivation.

Discussion Boards

Requiring students to do more “fluff work” rather than meaningful projects hurts my motivation. Busy Work

A lot of the assignments are busy work. Busy Work

You can BS through the online portion, or just disregard the readings and not do work that isn’t graded. Busy Work

It gets really boring just sitting through classmates’ presentations, especially when classmates just read off of index cards or PowerPoint slides.

Lack of Interaction

I really don’t like online discussion posts and don’t benefit from those at all.

Discussion Boards

I don’t think discussion boards are always effective. Discussion Boards

Discussion boards are completely useless. Discussion Boards

I feel like the work outside of the classroom is just busy work and I’m not really taking much from it. Busy Work

Too much busy work, not enough instruction from professors. Busy Work


Discussion board posts are not that engaging in my opinion. Discussion Boards

May not take the time to learn the materials outside of class. Busy Work

I feel like discussion board postings and a lot of assignments I can BS. I am learning as much not doing them as I am doing them…except how to BS more effectively.

Discussion Boards

Online discussion sucks. It doesn’t come close to mirroring what in class dialog can produce in terms of learning.

Discussion Boards

The discussion boards are not helpful. Discussion Boards

Table 11.

Participants’ perceptions of the weaknesses of the acquisition of information of concepts related

to course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction and thematic analysis (n=27).

Acquisition of

Information and

Concepts Related to

Course Content

Weaknesses Theme

Not able to learn all the material. Lack of Learning

I don’t think we fully understand the concepts or the direction of the class when so much information is left up to the students’ discretion.

Lack of Learning

I don’t think students are taught how to teach, so when they teach other students, it is boring and sometimes ineffective.

Lack of Learning

Sometimes it is difficult to fully understand the lecture outside of class because the instructor is not immediately available when you approach a problem you don’t know or understand.

Lack of Learning

I feel like the work outside of the classroom is just busy work and I’m not really taking much from it.

Lack of Learning

I feel like discussion board postings and a lot of assignments I can BS. I am learning as much not doing them as I am doing them…except how to BS more effectively.

Lack of Learning

Online discussion sucks. It doesn’t come close to mirroring what in class dialog can produce in terms of learning.

Lack of Learning

The three variables explored within this research were considered to be key entities of the

inverted classroom model of instruction that were aimed at supporting multiple hypotheses. This


confirmatory, hypothesis-driven, study was guided by specific hypotheses the researcher wanted

to assess. The following hypotheses were posed:

H1. The more the students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of

instruction based on their attitudes, feelings, and preferences, the more they will

positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques.

H2. The more the students positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and

techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will positively

perceive their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.

H3. The more the students negatively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and

techniques of the inverted classroom model of instruction, the more they will negatively

perceive their acquisition of information and concepts related to the course content.

After reviewing the results of this study, the researcher accepts H1 and H2. The basis for

this acceptance comes from the responses gathered from the open-ended, qualitative portion of

the survey and the responses elicited in the quantitative portion. Hypothesis 1 states, in general

terms, if students enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction based on their personal

preference that they will like the techniques utilized in the inverted classroom, while hypothesis

2 states if they like the techniques utilized in the inverted classroom they will feel like they are

effectively acquiring the course content. Participants indicated twenty-four strengths associated

with their attitudes, feelings, and preferences of the inverted classroom model of instruction.

The thematic analysis of these strengths included participants’ autonomy, experience, and

convenience in the course. On average, the participants enjoy the inverted classroom model of

instruction (2.98). Participants’ perceived twenty-one strengths of the inverted classroom based


on the procedures, operations, methods, and techniques with the thematic analysis centering on

the interactive and practical techniques implemented versus a lecture style classroom. On

average, the participants’ find the inverted classroom instructional strategies as an effective way

to enhance learning (3.05). Participants’ perceived only seven strengths with regard to

acquisition of information and concepts related to course content with the thematic analysis

centering on learning the content. Indicated as the lowest average but still in the positive region

of the results, participants’ perceive themselves as effectively learning the course content (2.93).

Evidence of Quality

Internal/External Validity and Reliability. Validity can be defined as the means to

which inferences about the research can be made. The two types of validity that impact the

implications made from the research are: internal validity and external validity. With regard to

internal validity, this study can be challenged by a few arguments. The first argument surrounds

the experience of the survey participants. Fifty-eight percent of the participants indicated they

had previously been enrolled in an inverted classroom model of instruction while twenty-five

percent said they had not and eighteen percent said they did not know. Prior experience in an

inverted classroom model of instruction may have had an impact on their perceptions of each of

the three variables assessed as well as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the model of

instruction. Some participants’ indicated the model was difficult to adjust to while those who

may have had prior experience could have been adjusted to this model of instruction. The more

experience participants who have been involved in an inverted classroom model of instruction

may have a better idea of what they perceive as strengths and weaknesses than novice

participants.


Another argument against internal validity is there is no guarantee the participants clearly

know what an inverted classroom model of instruction entails or that the Development of

Materials and Programs course is taught in an inverted style. Students’ may have felt confused

by the concepts of the inverted classroom and may be confused by labeling LTLE485 an inverted

classroom. The participants may have felt obliged to answer the questions whether or not they

agree with the classification of their course. Due to the fact that there is no way to determine the

willingness or apprehension that occurs in the minds of the survey participants, the only way to

control validity issues was to create a structured survey that provided three main attributes of an

inverted classroom model of instruction which included the delivery of course content outside of

the classroom, discussion boards to foster content mastery, and in-class activities.

In terms of external validity, the timing of the survey may have impacted survey

participants. The survey was distributed half way through the semester of the course; therefore,

the students may have not had enough time encounter the full effects of the inverted classroom

model of instruction. While many of the survey participants responded with key perceptions and

recommendations, there is no way to tell what could have been recorded if the survey was issued

at a more opportune time at the end of the semester. Another challenge of external validity is the

sample for this study. For the purpose of this study, a purposive sample was chosen because of

their experience in the inverted classroom model of instruction. This is a limitation because it

lacks the evidence to generalize the data results for larger populations. A further discussion of

this issue is addressed in recommendations for future study.

Despite the threats to internal and external validity, the reliability of the study does not

appear to be jeopardized. The survey was distributed to students in both sections of the


Development of Materials and Program course during the spring 2014 semester. The data

collection can be assumed that all responses came from appropriate subjects in the two sections.

This enables other researchers to conduct a similar study in nature at other universities, and

replicate its findings accordingly. The only limitation to this reliability is that the study was only

conducted for a Human Resource Development minor course at one mid-sized university in

Virginia, and the results may be unique to the subject and collegiate level of the course.

The data analysis and results section of this research study recorded and analyzed the

quantitative and qualitative data collection from the mixed methodology research design

regarding students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. It was

determined that the majority of the participants agree that they enjoy the inverted classroom

model of instruction, they find the techniques utilized in the inverted classroom model of

instruction to enhance learning, and effectively learn the course content. The participants’

suggestions were complemented by their perceptions that culminated in the qualitative questions

on the survey. While students positively perceive the inverted classroom model of instruction,

students provided specific strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of

instruction. The next section of this study provides a brief overview of the study, interpretations

of the findings on students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction,

recommendations for action and further study, and a reflection of the researcher’s experience.

Conclusion


The purpose of this study was to analyze students' perceptions of the inverted classroom

model of instruction employed in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485)

course in the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor at James Madison University. By

evaluating students' perceptions of an inverted classroom model, higher educators have the

opportunity to understand the impact this model has on their students and the future of

academics. Although there has been relatively little research on students’ perceptions of the

inverted classroom model, Ke and Kwak (2013) advocate the view that, “Among multiple

measures for online learner success, learner satisfaction is an important measure” (p. 98).

Analyzing students’ perceptions, and ultimately satisfaction, of the inverted classroom model of

instruction provides valuable information on the students’ perceptions of their success in an

inverted classroom. This study employed a mixed methodology research design utilizing

quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures to identify students’ perceptions of an

inverted classroom model of instruction. The author also conducted research on instructional

design, educational technology, and the inverted classroom model of instruction in order to better

examine students’ perceptions of the various elements in the implementation of the inverted

classroom. A review of the findings, recommendations for action and future research, limitations

of the study and a reflection of the researchers’ experience will be discussed in the next sections

of the study.

Interpretation of Findings

A number of findings from this research are important for the future study of students’

perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. This research identified a number of

themes based on the three variables evaluated in the survey, which are pertinent and valuable to


higher educators and those implementing an inverted classroom model of instruction. The

researcher attempted to answer the following research questions in this study:

RQ1: What are students’ perceptions of their attitudes, feelings, and preferences towards

the inverted classroom model of instruction?





Attitudes, Feelings, and Preferences. Through the collection and analysis of the data, it

is clear that the students positively perceive the inverted classroom based on their attitudes,

feelings, and preferences. A majority of the students indicated they enjoy learning the course

content outside of the classroom and engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with

the help of an instructor. Mason et al. (2013) indicate three primary motivations for using an

inverted classroom model of instruction, which directly correlate to the data found in this study.

The authors assert a motivation that is supported in the data for students’ attitudes, feelings, and

preferences in the inverted classroom is the encouragement for students to become self-directed

learners. However, many students have a negative perception about online discussion boards

with regard to their attitudes, feelings, and preferences. The qualitative data assisted in

providing in-depth rationale of students’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the

inverted classroom. Various strengths centered on students’ autonomy, experience and

convenience of the course while the weaknesses centered on a lack of motivation, interest and

community, adaptability and the perceived role of the teacher. Students suggested the inverted


classroom model of instruction allows students the freedom to do work at their own pace, while

some students suggested the inverted classroom decreases motivation.

Procedures, Operations, Methods, and Techniques. From the results of this study,

students positively perceive the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of the inverted

classroom model of instruction. As the highest average, students’ perceptions of the procedures,

operations, methods and techniques suggest students think technology is an effective way to

deliver course content outside of the classroom and hands-on activities in class are an effective

way to enhance learning and engagement. As previously mentioned, Mason et al. (2013)

indicated 2 primary motivations for implementing an inverted classroom.: 1) It allows educators

to present course content in several different formats, and 2. It frees up class time for interactive

activities. The authors’ assertions are supported by the data collected in the present study for the

procedures, operations, methods, and techniques of students’ perceptions of the inverted

classroom model of instruction. Similar to students’ negative perceptions of online discussion

boards previously mentioned, students did not perceive online discussion boards as an effective

way to enhance learning. However, a majority of students listed the interactive and practice

techniques utilized in an inverted classroom model of instruction as an effective way to enhance

learning. While some students find mandatory discussion boards online to be busy work, other

students suggest they feel like the hands-on experience in and outside of class are helping them

to learn more than previous courses.

Acquisition of Information and Course Concepts. Conclusions from the results of this

study indicate students positively perceive their acquisition of information and course concepts

related to course content. A majority of students indicated they effectively learn the course

content outside of the classroom and inside the classroom through in-class activities with the


help of an instructor. However, over half of the participants disagreed that they effectively learn

the course content through online discussion boards. Applying students’ perceptions of the

strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction, some students stated

the inverted classroom gives the student the ability to learn the material more effectively, while

other students suggested they don’t think they fully understand the concepts or direction of the

class when so much information is left up to the students’ discretion.

In addition to the three variables addressed in the data collection, the researcher also

attempted to gauge the students’ overall satisfaction level of the inverted classroom model of

instruction. Overall, students appear to be satisfied with the inverted classroom model of

instruction. Students also indicated a greater number of strengths associated with the inverted

classroom model of instruction than weaknesses, which complements the assumption of their

satisfaction level.

Recommendations for Action

As more educators are focusing their efforts on the design and implementation of more

active and collaborative methods of teaching, the inverted classroom model of instruction

provides new innovative instructional design techniques and resources to enhance education and

increase transfer of learning. Minimal research on students’ perceptions of the inverted

classroom model of instruction created an opportunity for this study to present a greater

understanding of the impact the model has on the students’ satisfaction level.

This research provides a foundation to the unveiling of students’ perceptions of the

inverted classroom model of instruction at a mid-sized Virginia university. The analysis of

students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction provided valuable


information to aid higher educators in the successful implementation of the model into their

instructional design toolbox. With the results of this study, instructors in higher education can

gather information about students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction.

This study was conducted for the Development of Materials and Programs course at

James Madison University for the spring 2014 semester; therefore, the professor and teaching

assistants of the course should analyze the results to have a better understanding of the students’

perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction. In order to successfully implement

an inverted classroom with a greater satisfaction level of the students, it is necessary for the

professor to decide on effective instructional strategies and then implement them. The

qualitative results regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of

instruction will also prove valuable for not only the professor of LTLE485 but also other

educators who may be interested in implementing an inverted classroom.

Recommendations for Further Study

The analysis and results of this study suggest that students positively perceive the

inverted classroom model of instruction. Future research should continue to develop an

understanding of students’ perceptions of the specific strategies of the inverted classroom model

of instruction. A further, in-depth analysis of literature focusing on the various instructional

strategies of the inverted classroom needs to be carried out. While the researcher found

instructional design and educational technology as major components of the inverted classroom

model of instruction, each of these components have various sub-components that need to be

analyzed.


When inquiring into students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction,

it is critical for future research to delve into the students’ acquisition of course content. This

study focused on students’ perceptions of how well they perceived their acquisition of content,

while future studies need to study the actual acquisition and mastery of the course content.

Future studies may want to study quiz, test, or final grades of students in an inverted classroom

compared to those in a traditional classroom. Other ways of understanding students’ acquisition

of course content could be done by observations or interviews.

Understanding the barriers or concerns, which impact students’ efficacy in an inverted

classroom model of instruction, is another area for future research. Students’ efficacy may be

affected by the implementation of different instructional strategies or educational technologies.

In this study, some students indicated autonomy as a positive aspect of the inverted classroom,

while other students indicated their lack of being able to fully understand the concepts when the

information is left up to the students’ discretion.

According to Gikas and Grant (2013), “As mobile devices continue to grow as part of the

higher education landscape, mobile computing devices present both opportunities and challenges

to higher education institutions (p. 18). As presented in the findings, mobile devices or smart

phones accounted for 35% of how students accessed the Internet for educational purposes.

Future research should focus on the implications of assessing educational materials and content

via a mobile device or smart phone.

Limitations

One underlying limitation in this study is the sample size. The sample was small and

therefore not generalizable to the entire population. This study cannot be compared to other


studies that examined the inverted classroom model of instruction, as the instructional strategies

may differ, but it does set the framework for future research. It also provides educators with an

idea of students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction as well as specific

strengths and weaknesses they perceive.

The researcher’s quantitative scale needs to undergo additional validity testing to ensure

accuracy of the measures. Because the researcher did not find any previously validated

quantitative scale, she had to create her own. Even though the researcher lacked significant

experience in creating quantitative measures, the qualitative data supported and expanded on the

quantitative results, improving the validity of the study.

Due to time constraints on the part of the researcher, other inverted classroom models of

instruction courses were excluded from the study. The researcher only took into account two

sections of one course in a minor study course. Another limitation is researcher bias. To

minimize researcher bias, coding, external audits, and member checks should be developed. If

the survey would have been distributed at the end of the semester, the students may have had

different perceptions and felt more confidence in their responses.

Conclusion

This research provides a foundation to the unveiling of students’ perceptions of the

inverted classroom model of instruction at a mid-sized Virginia university. The analysis of

students’ perceptions of the inverted classroom model of instruction provided valuable

information to aid higher educators in the successful implementation of an inverted classroom

model of instructional. The results of this study highlight students’ positive perceptions of the

instructional strategies of an inverted classroom model of instruction. Furthermore, the


exploration of strengths and weaknesses of the inverted classroom presented invaluable

information regarding students’ perceptions of specific elements regarding the model. While

past and current studies support the ideas of effective instructional design and educational

technology, future research should be geared towards building upon these theoretical constructs,

as well as finding new ways to appeal to the students’ perceptions. With the overwhelming

evidence corroborating the notion that new and innovative ideas and resources continue to

evolve, educators who are seeking to enhance and improve learner satisfaction and transfer of

learning should focus on the implementation of theoretically based instructional design and

educational technology to implement an inverted classroom model of instruction, ultimately

transforming the classroom.


Appendix A

IRB Approval Form

James Madison UniversityHuman Research Review Request

FOR IRB USE ONLY:

Exempt: Protocol Number: 1st Review: Reviewer:

Expedited: X

IRB: 14-0133 2nd Review: Reviewer:

Full Board:

Received: 3rd Review:

Project Title:

Students’ Perceptions of an Inverted Classroom Model of Instruction in an Undergraduate Human Resource Development Course

Project Dates: From: 10/01/13 To: 05/09/14

(Not to exceed 1 year minus 1 day)

MM/DD/YY

MM/DD/YY

Minimum # of Participants: 20

Maximum # of Participants: 63

External Funding: Yes: No: Internal Funding: Yes: No:

If yes, Sponsor:

Will monetary incentives be offered with funding? Yes: No:

If yes: How much per recipient? In what form?


Must follow JMU Financial Policy:

http://www.jmu.edu/finprocedures/4000/4205.shtml#_Toc460225002

Responsible Researcher(s): Meganne Nicole Downey

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Telephone: (540) 421-3757

Department: Adult Education/Human Resource Development

Address (MSC): 6913

Please Select:

Faculty Undergraduate Student

Administrator/Staff Member Graduate Student

(if Applicable):

Research Advisor: Dr. Noorjehan Brantmeier

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Telephone: (540) 568-4530

Department: Adult Education/Human Resource Development

Address (MSC): 6913

Investigator: Please respond to the questions below. The IRB will utilize your responses to evaluate your protocol submission.

1. YES NODoes the James Madison University Institutional Review Board define the project as research?

The James Madison University IRB defines "research" as a "systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” All research involving human participants conducted by James Madison University faculty and staff and students is subject to IRB review.

2. YES NOAre the human participants in your study living individuals?

“Individuals whose physiologic or behavioral characteristics and responses are the object of study in a research project. Under the federal regulations, human subjects are defined as: living individual(s) about whom an investigator conducting research obtains: (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual; or (2) identifiable private information.”

mailto:[email protected]





3. YES NOWill you obtain data through intervention or interaction with these individuals?

“Intervention” includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (e.g., measurement of heart rate or venipuncture) and manipulations of the participant or the participant's environment that are performed for research purposes. “Interaction” includes communication or interpersonal contact between the investigator and participant (e.g., surveying or interviewing).

4. YES NOWill you obtain identifiable private information about these individuals?

"Private information" includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, or information provided for specific purposes which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (e.g., a medical record or student record). "Identifiable" means that the identity of the participant may be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information (e.g., by name, code number, pattern of answers, etc.).

5. YES NO Does the study present more than minimal risk to the participants?

"Minimal risk" means that the risks of harm or discomfort anticipated in the proposed research are not greater, considering probability and magnitude, than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests. Note that the concept of risk goes beyond physical risk and includes psychological, emotional, or behavioral risk as well as risks to employability, economic well being, social standing, and risks of civil and criminal liability.

CERTIFICATIONS:

For James Madison University to obtain a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) with the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, all research staff working with human participants must sign this form and receive training in ethical guidelines and regulations. "Research staff" is defined as persons who have direct and substantive involvement in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research and includes students fulfilling these roles as well as their faculty advisors. The Office of Research Integrity maintains a roster of all researchers who have completed training within the past three years.

Test module at ORI website http://www.jmu.edu/researchintegrity/irb/irbtraining.shtml

Name of Researcher(s) Training Completion Date

Meganne Nicole Downey 09/18/2012

Dr. Noorjehan Brantmeier 09/19/2013

http://www.jmu.edu/researchintegrity/irb/irbtraining.shtml


For additional training interests, or to access a Spanish version, visit the National Institutes of Health Protecting Human Research Participants (PHRP) Course at: http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php.

By signing below, the Responsible Researcher(s), and the Faculty Advisor (if applicable), certifies that he/she is familiar with the ethical guidelines and regulations regarding the protection of human research participants from research risks. In addition, he/she agrees to abide by all sponsor and university policies and procedures in conducting the research. He/she further certifies that he/she has completed training regarding human participant research ethics within the last three years.Meganne Nicole Downey 09/25/2013

Principal Investigator Signature Date

_________________________________________ __________

Principal Investigator Signature Date

__________________ 09/30/2013

Faculty Advisor Signature Date

http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php


Purpose and Objectives

The primary purpose of this study is to understand students’ perceptions of the instructional strategies of the inverted class, Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485), in the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor at James Madison University. Various innovative instructional strategies are being implemented in higher education to enhance learning outcomes. The inverted classroom employs various e-learning tools and applications to present course content outside of the classroom and then allows the students to further engage in the content during the face-to-face component. An inverted classroom provides innovative instructional strategies to address the needs of diverse learning preferences and enhance learning outcomes. Minimal research on students’ perceptions of the instructional strategies implemented in an inverted classroom broadens the potential to understand the impact this approach will have on future academics.

Procedures/Research Design/Methodology/Timeframe

The time frame of this study ranges from the time of pending IRB approval through May 9, 2014. It is anticipated that the research will begin and the survey will be issued via Canvas no later than April 2014, so as to ensure timely student participation as they document their perceptions of the inverted course.

The participants in this study will be undergraduate students from the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) inverted class in the Human Resource Development (HRD) minor program at James Madison University during the spring 2014 semester. LTLE485 is designed to provide students with the basic skills necessary to design and develop performance-based training programs and courses. LTLE485 is facilitated by Dr. Noorie Brantmeier and a teaching assistant for each section. The researcher has received permission from the facilitators to gain access to the announcements in Canvas for students enrolled in LTLE485 at James Madison University.

LTLE485 is the only inverted classroom in the HRD minor and has been taught as an inverted classroom for the past three years under the same facilitators. Although the course is offered during the fall and spring semesters of the academic year, the researcher is only collecting data during the spring 2014 semester. The course has two sections for the spring 2014 semester.

This research will be conducted at the completion of the spring 2014 semester through the implementation of an anonymous, web-based Qualtrics survey distributed to students enrolled in LTLE485 via an announcement in Canvas. It is anticipated that the survey should take ten to fifteen minutes to complete. The email will include a consent form with a cover letter requesting voluntary consent to participate in the survey, as well as a direct link to the Qualtrics survey.


This survey will contain two methodologies to collect data, yielding both quantitative and qualitative responses (consisting of Likert scaled and open ended questions).

Will data be collected from any of the following populations?

Minors (under 18 years of age); Specify Age:

Prisoners

Pregnant Women

Fetuses

Cognitively impaired persons

Other protected or potentially vulnerable population

X Not Applicable

Where will research be conducted? (Be specific; if research is being conducted off of JMU’s campus a site letter of permission will be needed)

James Madison University

Human Resource Development Minor

Memorial Hall 3310, MSC 6913Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807

Will deception be used? If yes, provide the rationale for the deception:

No

Data Analysis

What methodology will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of the data (i.e., how and where data will be stored/secured, how data will be analyzed, who will have access to data, and what will happen to data after the study is completed?)

Data will be stored and analyzed within Qualtrics, the online survey instrument being utilized for this research project. The survey being issued will be anonymous, in that there will be no identifying information attached to any of the research questions being asked. The researcher will not be present while the survey is being completed. Furthermore, any statistical information being analyzed for reporting purposes will be stored on a personal laptop computer that is


password protected, with any statistical documents being password protected as well. A back-up copy of these documents may be kept on a portable hard drive, which will also be password protected. The researcher will be the only individual who will have any access to this data, which will remain within a password-protected electronic file once the research has been completed. At the end of the study, all records will be destroyed.

Reporting Procedures

Who is the audience to be reached in the report of the study?

The audience to be reached in the report of this study is the researcher’s committee members, which consists of three graduate faculty members within the AHRD/LTLE graduate school. These members are as follows:

Dr. Noorjehan Kelsey Brantmeier – Committee Chair

Dr. Jane Thall – Committee Member / Program Director

Dr. Diane Wilcox – Committee Member / Program Coordinator

How will you present the results of the research? (If submitting as exempt, research cannot be published or publicly presented outside of the classroom)

The results of this research will be presented to a Research Review Committee in a formalized classroom to the committee members listed above through a “defense” of the research and the resulting findings.

How will feedback be provided to subjects?

Within the consent form contained in the email being sent to the survey participants, the researcher’s email address will be printed, so as to allow the participants to contact the researcher with feedback, questions or concerns regarding the study, as well as to give them the opportunity to learn about the results of the study, if they choose to inquire.

Experience of the Researcher (and advisor, if student):

Meganne Nicole Downey has an undergraduate degree in Communication Studies with a concentration in Public Relations from James Madison University. I am currently pursuing my master’s degree in Adult Education and Human Resource Development at James Madison University. I have completed coursework in Research Methods (Quantitative and Qualitative), Performance Analysis, Adult Learning, Educational Technology, and Foundations of Human Resource Development.

Dr. Noorie Kelsey Brantmeier has a Ph.D. in Adult Education and Human Resource Studies with a specialization in research methods from Colorado State University. She has a


master’s degree in social work from Washington University in St. Louis where she conducted research on social and economic development in Native American communities. Dr. Brantmeier has been a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, and/or research coordinator on studies related to the measurement of student attitudes regarding diversity in higher education; youth civic engagement; and adolescent attitudes toward violence. She holds the rank of Graduate Faculty at JMU and teaches research methods courses at both the master’s and doctoral levels.

Past and current research methods courses taught include:

PSY 840: Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods

AHRD/EDUC 630: Research Methods & Inquiry

AHRD 680/700: Reading & Research/Thesis

Cover Letter (Used in Anonymous Research)

Identification of Investigators & Purpose of Study You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Meganne Nicole Downey from James Madison University. The purpose of this study is to The primary concern of this survey is to develop a greater understanding of the instructional strategies of an inverted classroom’s impact on active learning goals in order to design an effective blended learning environment. Active learning goals include: affective learning (attitudes, feelings, and perceptions), behavioral learning (procedures, operations, methods, and techniques), and cognitive learning (content). This study will contribute to the researcher’s completion of her master’s research in the Adult Education/Human Resource Development program.

Research ProceduresThis study consists of an online survey that will be administered to individual participants using Qualtrics. You will be asked to provide answers to a series of questions related to your attitudes, feelings and perceptions, procedures, operations, methods and techniques, and content of in the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE 485) course at James Madison University.

Time RequiredParticipation in this study will require 10-15 minutes of your time.


Risks The investigator does not perceive more than minimal risks from your involvement in this study (that is, no risks beyond the risks associated with everyday life).

BenefitsPotential benefits from participation in this study include the focus on the impact of the instructional strategies utilized in an inverted classroom on the three major types of learning will provide educators and trainers an effective way to incorporate a successful inverted classroom.

Confidentiality The results of this research will be presented to a Research Review Committee comprised of faculty members from the College of Education. While individual responses are obtained and recorded anonymously and kept in the strictest confidence, aggregate data will be presented representing averages or generalizations about the responses as a whole. No identifiable information will be collected from the participant and no identifiable responses will be presented in the final form of this study. All data will be stored in a secure location accessible only to the researcher. The researcher retains the right to use and publish non-identifiable data. At the end of the study, all records will be destroyed.

Participation & Withdrawal Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate. Should you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind; choosing not to participate will not affect your grade or your standing with the professor. However, once your responses have been submitted and anonymously recorded you will not be able to withdraw from the study.

Questions about the StudyIf you have questions or concerns during the time of your participation in this study, or after its completion or you would like to receive a copy of the final aggregate results of this study, please contact:

Meganne Nicole Downey Dr. Noorjehan Brantmeier

Adult Education/Human Resource Development Adult Education/Human Resource Development

James Madison University James Madison University

[email protected] Telephone: (540) 568-4530

[email protected]




Questions about Your Rights as a Research SubjectDr. David Cockley

Chair, Institutional Review Board

James Madison University

(540) 568-2834

[email protected]

Giving of ConsentI have read this cover letter and I understand what is being requested of me as a participant in this study. I freely consent to participate. I have been given satisfactory answers to my questions. I certify that I am at least 18 years of age.

Meganne Nicole Downey

Name of Researcher (Printed)

Meganne Nicole Downey 09/25/2013

Name of Researcher (Signed) Date



Appendix B

Survey Instrument

The following survey intends to gather data about students' perceptions of an inverted classroom model of instruction. The information you provide will be completely anonymous because you will not supply any personal information, and you will not directly identify your answer to any

question. You will be asked a series of 11 questions pertaining to your experience in the inverted classroom Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485).

Thank you for participating in this study.

Q1 What is your current student level at James Madison University?

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other ____________________

Q2 What is your current major at James Madison University? (Please fill in your response)

Q3 What is your gender?

Male Female Prefer not to respond

Q4 What best describes how you access the Internet for educational purposes? (Check all that apply)

Personal Desktop or Laptop University Desktop or Laptop Smart phone Tablet Other ____________________


Q5 Have you ever been involved in an inverted classroom prior to the Development of Materials and Programs (LTLE485) course?

Yes No I don't know


Q6 For the following statements please indicate whether you agree or disagree based on your attitudes, feelings, and preferences of an inverted classroom model of instruction.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree I enjoy

learning course content outside of the classroom.

I enjoy the online discussion boards.

I enjoy engaging in hands-on activities inside of the classroom with the help of an instructor.

Overall, I enjoy the inverted classroom model of instruction.


Q7 For the following statements please indicate whether you agree or disagree based on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an inverted classroom model of instruction.


Agree Technology

is an effective way to deliver course content outside of the classroom.

Online discussion boards enhance learning.

Hands on activities in class are an effective way to enhance learning and engagement.

Overall, the inverted classroom model of instruction enhances learning.


Q8 For the following statements please indicate whether you agree or disagree based on the content presented in an inverted classroom model of instruction.


Agree I

effectively learn the course content outside of the classroom.

I effectively learn the content through online discussion boards.

I effectively learn the course content through in-class activities with the help of an instructor.

Overall, I effectively learn the content in the inverted classroom model of instruction.


Q9 On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being very satisfied and 1 being very unsatisfied, what is your overall satisfaction level of the inverted classroom model of instruction?

______ Overall, satisfaction of the inverted classroom model of instruction

Q10 Overall, what are the major strengths of the inverted classroom model of instruction? (Please fill in your responses)

Q11 Overall, what are the major weaknesses of the inverted classroom model of instruction? (Please fill in your responses)


References

Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy. Z. K. (2009). Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for

laboratory education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 283-294. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=43642975&site=ehost

-live&scope=site

Academy of Human Resource Development Standing Committee on Ethics and Integrity (1999).

Academy of Human Resource Development Standards on Ethics and Integrity. Retrieved

from:

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ahrd.org/resource/resmgr/imported/ethics_standards.pdf

Alonso, F., López, G., & Manrique, D. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-

learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 36(2), 217-235. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00454.x

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Bellefeuille, G. L. (2006). Rethinking reflective practice education in social work education:

A blended constructivist and objectivist instructional design strategy for a web-based

child welfare practice course. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(1), 85-103.


Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ofm&AN=20303578&site=ehost -live&scope=site

Cole, J. E., & Kritzer, J. B. (2009). Strategies for success: Teaching an online course. Rural

Special Education Quarterly, 28(4), 36-40. Retrieved from

Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in

education (8th ed.). New York , NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fraser, B. J., Treagust, D. F., & Dennis, N. C. (1986). Development of an instrument for

assessing classroom psychosocial environment at universities and colleges. Studies in

Higher Education, 11(1), 43-54.

Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Gedik, N., Kiraz, E., & Yaşar Özden, M. (2012). The optimum blend: Affordances and

challenges of blended learning for students. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative

Inquiry, 3(3), 102-117. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78300147&site=ehost -live&scope=site

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student

perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and

Higher Education, 19(0), 18-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002

Heinze, A., & Procter, C. (2006). Online communication and information technology


education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 235-249. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23714587&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Ishtaiwa, F. F., & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2012). The impact of asynchronous e-learning tools on

interaction and learning in a blended course. International Journal of Instructional

Media, 39(2), 141-159. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ofm&AN=76276380&site=ehost -live&scope=site

Jackson, A., Gaudet, L., McDaniel, L., & Brammer, D. (2009). Curriculum integration: The

use of technology to support learning. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 6(7), 71-

78. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ895070&site=ehost -live&scope=site; http://www.cluteinstitute-

onlinejournals.com/archives/journals.cfm?Journal=Journal%20of%20College%20Teachi

ng%20%26%20Learning

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating

an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.


direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2635060&site=ehost- live&scope=site

Levykh, M. G. (2008). The affective establishment and maintenance of Vygotsky’s zone of


proximal development. Educational Theory, 58(1), 83-101. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

5446.2007.00277.x

Lui, A. (2012). Teaching in the Zone: An introduction to working within the Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD) to drive effective early childhood instruction. Chilren’s Progress.

Northwest Evaluation Association.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Moisseeva, M., Steinbeck, R. & Seufert, S. (2007). Online learning communities and

collaborative learning.

Muniandy, B., Mohammad, R., & Fong, S. F. (2007). Synergizing pedagogy, learning theory

and technology in instruction: How can it be done? Online Submission, Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED503001&site=ehos

t-live&scope=site

Napier, N. P., Dekhane, S., & Smith, S. (2011). Transitioning to blended learning:

Understanding student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 15(1), 20-32. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ918216&site=ehost -live&scope=site;

http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v15n1/transitioning-blended-learning- understanding-

student-and-faculty-perceptions

Puzziferro, M., & Shelton, K. (2008). A model for developing high-quality online courses:

Integrating a systems approach with learning theory. Journal of Asynchronous Learning


Networks, 12(3-4), 119-136. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?


http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v12n3/model-developing-high-quality- online-courses-

integrating-systems-approach-learning-theory

Rourke, A. J., & Coleman, K. S. (2010). A learner support system: Scaffolding to enhance

digital learning. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 6(1), 55-70.


direct=true&db=a9h&AN=66384918&site=ehost -live&scope=site

Silberman, M. (2006). Active Training (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation

and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. doi:

10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4

Wang, M. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using

asynchronous tools in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,

26(6), 830-846. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?


http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/wang.pdf

Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2012). Human Resource Development (6th ed.). Mason,

OH: South-Western, Gengage Learning.

Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, S. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-


solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89‐100.

Zheng, R., McAlack, M., Wilmes, B., Kohler-Evans, P., & Williamson, J. (2009). Effects of

multimedia on cognitive load, self-efficacy, and multiple rule-based problem solving.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 790-803. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8535.2008.00859.x

Documents

How do inverted classroom (flipping the classroom ...€¦ · Web viewStudents’ Perceptions of an Inverted Classroom Model of Instruction in an Undergraduate Human Resource Development