downeymn.weebly.comdowneymn.weebly.com/.../edited_meganne_downey_rea… · web viewstudents’...
TRANSCRIPT
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 3
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 4
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’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 5
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 6
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 7
the components of the model and provide advantages and challenges for teachers and
students.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 8
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 9
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 10
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 11
(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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 12
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 13
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,
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 14
“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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 15
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 16
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:
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 17
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).
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 18
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 19
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 20
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 21
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 22
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 23
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 24
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 25
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 26
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 27
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 28
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?
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?
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 29
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 30
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 31
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,
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 32
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 33
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 34
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 35
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 36
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 37
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%).
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 38
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 39
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%).
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 40
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 41
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 42
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 43
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
classroom model of instruction.
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 44
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
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 13. Participants’ views on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an
inverted classroom model of instruction (n=40).
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 45
Table 2.
Participants’ views on the procedures, operations, methods and techniques of an inverted
classroom model of instruction.
Descriptive Statistic
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
Standard Deviation 0.57 0.87 0.51 0.60
Total Responses 40 40 40 40
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 46
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
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 14. Participants’ views on learning the course content in an inverted classroom model of
instruction (n=38).
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 47
Table 3.
Participants’ views on learning the course content in an inverted classroom model of instruction.
Descriptive Statistic
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
Standard Deviation 0.66 0.81 0.51 0.54
Total Responses 38 38 38 38
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).
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 48
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 49
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 50
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 51
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 52
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 53
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 54
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 55
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 56
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 57
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 58
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 59
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 60
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 61
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?
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?
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 62
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 63
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 64
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 65
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 66
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 67
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 68
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?
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 69
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.”
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 70
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 71
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 72
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 73
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 74
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 75
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 76
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 77
Questions about Your Rights as a Research SubjectDr. David Cockley
Chair, Institutional Review Board
James Madison University
(540) 568-2834
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 78
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 ____________________
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 79
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 80
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 81
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.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 82
Q8 For the following statements please indicate whether you agree or disagree based on the content presented in an inverted classroom model of instruction.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 83
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)
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 84
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.
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 85
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 86
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.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 87
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
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 88
Networks, 12(3-4), 119-136. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ837519&site=ehost -live&scope=site;
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.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
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?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ906891&site=ehost -live&scope=site;
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-
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AN INVERTED CLASSROOM 89
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