FLIP CLASSROOM: AN INNOVATIVE WAY OF ...

FLIP CLASSROOM: AN INNOVATIVE WAY OF TEACHING TO EXCEL LEARNING Touhid Bhuiyan, Imran Mahmud Daffodil International University, Bangladesh

Abstract: Experimental teaching and learning method have been consistently demonstrated to achieve better outcomes than traditional lecture based technique. Unfortunately, in the universities in Bangladesh especially private university sector, it seems falling and running behind on effective and efficient teaching methods for students. Nowadays flipping the classroom has transformed teaching practices. With the rise of technology use in classrooms, many professors are open to structuring their classrooms in innovative ways. The flip classroom (or inverted classroom) is one such innovative classroom structure that moves the lecture outside the classroom via technology and moves homework and practice with concepts inside the classroom via learning activities. In traditional classroom teaching, only the best students raise their hands first and participate. At the same time, rest of the classroom passively participates. But flipped classrooms ensure the role of faculties and students. Faculties move around the classroom who struggle most. Again, in the current social, political situations which obstruct traditional classrooms, flip classroom might aid in the excellence on higher education especially on the subjects of science and technology. This research describes the findings of the comparison between flip class and traditional class delivery method in a course taught in a private university in Bangladesh; a discussion of the activities engaged by students, an explanation that how flip classroom helps them to improve their tasks for that course, a description of data collection and finally the impacts to excel learning through flip class rather than their traditional class. Keywords: Flipped classroom, education, teaching, learning, digital technology. Introduction Educators have been working to break this lecture-centered instructional model by shifting focus from the curriculum pacing guide to student learning needs as the driver of instruction. They are, increasingly, turning to an alternative model of instruction called Flipped Learning in which digital technologies are used to shift direct instruction outside of the group learning space to the individual learning space, usually via videos. Offloading direct instruction in this way allows teachers to reconsider how to maximize individual face to face time with the students. Time becomes available for students to collaborate with peers on projects, engage more deeply with content, practice skills, and receive feedback on their progress. Teachers can devote more time to coaching their students, helping them develop procedural fluency if needed, and inspiring and assisting them with challenging projects that give them greater control over their own learning. Regarded as the pioneers of Flipped Learning, in 2007, two rural Colorado chemistry teachers, who were concerned that students frequently missed end-of-day classes to travel to other schools for competitions, games or other events, began to use live video recordings and screen casting software to record lectures, demonstrations, and slide presentations with annotations. Those materials were posted on the then-nascent YouTube for students to

download and access whenever and wherever it was convenient. But the mode of delivery turned out to be less important than what it made possible. In a book on their work called Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day (2012), the two teachers, Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams [1], reported that, after they flipped their classroom, students began interacting more in class. Moreover, because time could be used more flexibly, students who were behind received more individual attention while advanced students continued to progress. In this paper, it was our aim, to investigate the impact of flipped classroom on students’ motivation, implemented to teach students programming C, especially by conducted an experimental design and asking students a survey questionnaire adopted by Keller’s ARCS motivational Model. Ideally, this evaluation will be of some benefit for both students and teachers in the context of Bangladesh as no such experiment has been conducted before.

Literature Review Flipped Learning Model in Education Researcher reported that several higher education institutions that have successfully implement Flipped Learning models. The short cases that follow were included in Walsh’simplementation report [2]. Papadopoulos and Roman [3], saw that students progressed through material faster, that students understood topics in greater depth, and additional content could be covered without sacrificing the quality of the course as a whole. Additionally, they found that 75% of students frequently or always helped other students in the class. In terms of student performance, test scores exceeded those in the traditional learning environment. Flipping the classroom seemed to be effective in helping students understand course material and develop design skills [4]. Their findings were reinforced by satisfaction surveys and focus groups in which over 70% of students said the class learning environment was more interactive. In one study, students in a flipped college introductory statistics course reported being less than satisfied with the way they were prepared for the tasks they were given [5]. They were more satisfied with the peer collaboration stimulated by this learning [6] [7]. There were no significant differences in students’ knowledge and anxiety levels between the two versions of the course [6]. In looking at the effect of the flipped classroom model on a computer applications course, Johnson and Renner [8] found no significant differences between mean test scores of those who experienced the flipped classroom components and those students who did not. They also found no benefit to using the flipped method of classroom instruction in a secondary computer applications class. These results might be explained by the fact that the instructor of this course was asked to implement the Flipped Learning instruction method absent any perceived need. ARCS in Education Numerous researchers argued that motivation is highly important feature in teaching and learning[9][10] [11]. Motivation can influence what, when, and how we learn [10]. High selfefficacy and high level of engagement in learning can be achieved by students who are motivated [12] [13].

The ARCS model is the most widely-used motivational model applied to the design and development of computer-assisted instruction programs [14] [15] and online learning environments [16] [17]. Applying the ARCS model has also been reported to reduce attrition rate in distance learning programs [18] [19] and improve learners’ self-directed learning [20]. Since it was introduced, the ARCS model has been supported by numerous studies, including those in e-learning settings. Most of these studies, however, are experience-based case studies. More experimental research studies are needed to further validate the ARCS motivational design model, especially in the relatively new field of online learning.

Research Design: Research Question The main question for this research is “Is classroom flipped motivate students?” To answer the research question, we formulated several hypotheses H1: Students of flipped class room has more attention than students of traditional class room H2: Higher degree of relevance has explored by students of flipped classroom than traditional classroom H3: Students’ confidence boosted in flipped classroom rather than traditional class H4: Flipped classroom environment provides more satisfaction to the students than traditional class Research Framework Control Group

Attention

Relevance Traditional Class

Survey Confidence

Satisfaction

Experimental Group

Attention Video lecture

Relevance Survey Tutorial class

Confidence Flipped Class Satisfaction

Participation and Sample Size For our research purpose, we took advantage of C programming course in a well-known private university of Bangladesh. We distributed 30 students in control group (traditional class) and 30 students in experimental group (Flipped class). The demographic information of the students are given below

Procedure In the experiments, a video was provided on C programming array. This video was provided online and students watched that on their online learning feedback system. In the next class, teacher divided the class into groups and students were provided to do some tutorial. No lecture slides or notes were provided on that class. At the end of the class, students fill up the motivational questionnaire.

In the traditional class, lecture was simple like other traditional classes. Teacher came to the class and provided notes and lecture slides. At the end of the class, teacher provided homework to the students. Same questionnaire of ARCS applied to the students to answer. After the experiment, results of both traditional and experimental class were collected and independent sample t test applied to test the hypotheses and the significance. Effect size was also calculated to measure the difference of motivation. Motivation Measurement Formula The IMMS of Keller’s ARCS questionnaire has 36 items. The Relevance and Confidence subscales both have 9 items, the Satisfaction subscale has 6, and the Attention subscale has 12. IMMS survey can be scored for each of the four subscales or the total scale score. The response scale ranges from 1 to 5. This means that the minimum score on the 36item survey is 36, and the maximum is 180 with a midpoint of 108. To answer our hypotheses, we added value of each four subscales for both control and experimental group. Attention 2 8 11 12 (reverse) 15 (reverse) 17 20 22 (reverse) 24 28 29 (reverse) 31 (reverse)

Relevance 6 9 10 16 18 23 26 (reverse) 30 33

Confidence 1 3 (reverse) 4 7 (reverse) 13 19 (reverse) 25 34 (reverse) 35

Result of effect size was calculated by Cohen's d = M1 - M2 / spooled where spooled =√[(s 12+ s 22) / 2] M1= Mean value of result of experimental group M2= Mean value of result of control group S1= Standard deviation of result of experimental group S2= Standard deviation of result of control group

Satisfaction 5 14 21 27 32 36

Result and Discussion Reliability Testing Constructs Attention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Crombach’s Alpha 0.86 0.73 0.72 0.85

Crombach’s alpha for all the constructs are more than 0.70 which are in acceptable range. Comparisons of different motivational features between two groups

Hypothesis testing result H1 H2 H3 H4

t value 12.1 2.9 5.0 4.5

Significance p < 0.001 p < 0.05 p < 0.001 p < 0.001

Remarks Supported Supported Supported Supported

p value less than 0.05 means, null hypothesis is rejected and strong evidence that result is statistically significant. Calculation of Effect size for implementing flipped class Constructs Attention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Effect size, d 3.14 0.75 1.34 1.18

Massive effects were observed on experimental group in case of motivation.

Conclusion In interactive education system, flipped classroom helps to improve students’ motivation, satisfaction and skill and accomplish to reconsider how to maximize individual face to face time with the students. From our findings we observe that students of flipped classroom are more attentive, relevant, confident and satisfied rather than traditional classroom students. Reliability testing result focuses on the findings as an acceptance range. In flipped classroom teacher and students have more scope to interconnect each other and sharing their own opinion also improves their thinking power. In addition to that, digital technologies help student to do their task easily and help teachers to share course resources outside the classroom as well.

References

[1]. Bergmann, J. & Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. International Society for Technology in Education. [2]. Walsh, K. (2010). About Emerging Education and Instructional Technologies and Sharing the Learning Journey. [3]. Papadapoulos, C. & Roman, A. S. (2010). Implementing an inverted classroom model in engineering statistics: Initial results. American Society for Engineering Statistics. Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference ,Washington, DC, October 2010 [4]. Warter-Perez and Dong, Jianyu. (April, 2012). Flipping the classroom: How to embed inquiry and design projects into a digital engineering lecture. Paper presented at ASEE PSW Section Conference, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. [5]. Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task Orientation. Learning Environments, 15(2), 171. [6]. Frederickson, N., Reed, P., & Clifford, V. (2005). Evaluating web-supported learning versus lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 50(4), 645-664. [7]. Mazur, E. (1996). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Addison Wesley: Boston, MA [8]. Johnson, L., and J. Renner. "Effect of the flipped classroom model on secondary computer applications course: student and teacher perceptions, questions and student achievement." Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky (2012). [9]. Dick, W., Carey, J. O., & Carey, L. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6 ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon [10]. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall

[11]. Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: a comprehensive guide for teaching all adults.(2 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. [12]. Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249. [13]. Miller, D. J., & Robertson, D. P. (2010). Using a games console in theprimary classroom: Effects of brain training programme on computationand self-esteem.British Journal of Educational Technology, 41,242–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00918.x [14]. Bai, H., Pan, W., Hirumi, A., & Kebritchi, M. (2012). Assessing theeffectiveness of a 3D instructional game on improving mathematicsachievement and motivation of middle school students. British Journalof Educational Technology, 43, 993–1003. [15]. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52,1–12 [16]. Astleitner, H., & Hufnagl, M. (2003). The effects of situation-outcome-expectancies and of ARCS-strategies on self-regulated learning with Web-lectures. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(4), 361-376. [17]. Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-Learning design: a multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229-239. [18]. Chyung, S. Y. (2000). Systematic and systemic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 36-49 [19]. Visser, L. (1999). Development research applied to improve motivation in distance education. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association 115 for Educational Communications and Technology [AECT] (21st) (pp. 403-411). Houston, Texas, February 10-14, 1999 [20]. Gabrielle, D. M. (2005). The effects of technology-mediated instructional strategies on motivation, performance, and self-directed learning. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2005)