Inverting a non-major’s biology class: Using video lectures, online resources, and a student response system to facilitate deeper learning
Main Article Content
Abstract
Using pre-recorded video lectures, online resources, and a student response system (iClicker), instructors attempted to facilitate deeper learning in a non-major’s biology class. Following an inverted classroom format, students viewed lecture videos and completed online activities prior to face-to-face meetings with instructors. During face-to-face (traditional “lecture”) time, instructors tested student knowledge and guided students in group activities. Using a quasi-experimental design, researchers compared student performance on a comprehensive final exam with student performance from a previous semester. An independent sample t test indicated that students engaged in the inverted instructional model (N = 73, M = 74.49, SD = 12.54) performed better than students engaged in a traditionally model of instruction (N = 76, M = 70.32, SD = 12.19), t(147) = 2.06, p = 0.02. The effect size for this analysis (d = 0.33) represents a small effect according to Cohen (1988). Researchers also performed a chi-square test of goodness-of-fit to determine if grade distributions from the inverted model differed from the traditional model. Grade distributions from the inverted model were significantly different, X2 (5, N=100) = 24.85, p < .05.
Downloads
Article Details
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology (JoTLT) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in JoTLT.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoTLT publications, JoTLT encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoTLT, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
References
Arnaud, C. H. (2013). Flipping chemistry classrooms: Professors shift lectures online to free up class time for more effective learning activities. Chemical and Engineering News, 91, 41-43.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79-100. doi: 10.1007/BF02319859
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12-17.
Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implication. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94-99.
Herreid, C., & Schiller, N. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62.
Lage, M.J., & Platt, G. (2000). The internet and the inverted classroom. Journal of Economic Education, (31)11. doi: 10.1080/00220480009596756
Mazur, E. (1996). Peer Instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, JH: Prentice Hall.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in Higher Education. UK: Routledge.
Short, F., & Martin, J. (2011). Presentation vs. performance: Effects of lecturing style in higher education on student preference and student learning. Psychology Teaching Review. 17(2), 7182.
Thompson, C. (2011). How the Khan academy is changing the rules of education. Wired Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1.
Walvoord, B.E., & Poole, K.J. (1998). Effective grading. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watts, M., & Becker, W.E. (2008). A little more chalk and talk: Results from a third national survey of teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses. Journal of Economic Education. 39(3), 273-286. doi: 10.3200/JECE.39.3.273-286