To address the gaps in the literature, the aim of this multidisciplinary research project was to uncover undergraduate student perceptions of the key elements necessary for enhancing the student learning experience through increased social interactivity, critical thinking, and self-regulated activities in a flipped learning environment. The research question was ‘what do students’ identify as key elements in a flipped learning design’?
The modern iteration of the ‘flipped learning environment’ is grounded in egalitarian philosophy and underpinned by inquiry-based pedagogy (Dewey, 1916). Lipman (2003) combined the concept of learning communities with that of social activities to create a constructivist-collaborative theory of learning. These philosophical and theoretical foundations reflect the use of Community of Inquiry (CoI) frameworks in the design of contemporary flipped learning approaches to enhance self-paced and self-regulated learning (Gutierrez-Santiuste et al., 2015; Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014).
Emerging evidence links flipped learning to: high-level pedagogy using inquiry-based models of learning (Lipman 2003; Goodyear 2005); improved academic outcomes and performance and, increased student and staff satisfaction. However, there is much less conclusive evidence on the capacity for flipped approaches to build lifelong learners (O'Flaherty and Phillips, 2015). According to O'Flaherty and Phillips (2015), there are several reasons for the shortfall and include issues such as the absence of a single model for flipped learning, or, that educators involved in curriculum renewal may not fully understand the pedagogy of how to effectively translate the flipped class into practice and, that the key elements necessary for successful flipping and the link between pre- and face-to-face sessions are not well understood.
Additionally, O'Flaherty and Phillips (2015) identified gaps in the literature that need to be addressed for effective implementation of flipped learning. These gaps include (i) an under-utilisation of conceptual frameworks that enable a united approach to pre-, face-to-face and post learning activities, (ii) an underdeveloped capacity to blue print conceptual frameworks into context-specific plans and, (iii) poor understanding of how to design and support inquiry-based learning and metacognition in flipped learning curriculum (O'Flaherty and Phillips, 2015).
Methods:
In 2016, undergraduate students enrolled in 8 courses across 7 disciplines were invited to participate in a qualitative survey at 2 time points over 2 semesters. The disciplines included: science, education, nursing, public health, occupational therapy and business. Four data sets were generated: Informal in-class feedback was collected in semester 1 and semester 2 in week 4 and week 12 using a web-based student response system. A ‘Start’, ‘Stop’, ‘Continue’ questioning technique was used. Students in each course were asked to comment on what they would like the course coordinator to start, stop and continue in relation to the flipped classroom design. The university human research ethics committee approved the research study
Results:
A total of 947 responses were generated. Data for semester 1 & 2 were collapsed into one file for week 4 and one file for week 12 respectively. n=731 from semester 1 & 2 in week 4 and n=216 in semester 1 & 2 in week 12.
Data were analysed using an adaptation of Ritchie and Spencer’s (2007) five-stage qualitative data analysis process:
Stage 1 – Familiarisation (with data)
Stage 2 – Identification of thematic framework (key themes emerging from the data)
Stage 3 – Indexing (creating relevant, meaningful and concise word labels to explain each identified theme)
Stage 4 – Charting (re-arranging data from original context to the appropriate thematic reference)
Stage 5 – Mapping and interpretation (reviewing themes for connections and patterns and seeking explanations for these).
Thematic analysis was used to sort and code the data into general themes and then, further distilled down into meta themes. Meta themes describe the broad areas that students provided feedback about in relation to the flipped approach. Six meta themes emerged from week 4 and 12 data revealing 6 key elements necessary for effective flipped design and included (i) Pre-, in-class and post- class activities, (ii) Information sources and materials, (iii) Format (workshops, tutorials, ‘supertutes’, lectures), (iv) Teaching approach, (v) Learning environment and, (vi) Assessments and feedback.
Wood and Levy (2015) identify 8 factors to consider when designing an inquiry-based learning (IBL) course. These are activities, assessment, Information, spaces, technologies, tutoring, collaboration and, dissemination. The meta themes derived from the research presented here, reveal that students share similar views about the key elements necessary for their learning. The findings support the use of IBL as a conceptual framework in the design of a flipped class and substantiate the application of key elements in designing effective flipped learning activities.
Conclusion:
Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is recognised as a pedagogical foundation of flipped approaches. The inquiry-based learning framework (Levy, 2009; Wood & Levy, 2015) is a useful conceptual model in pedagogical design because it describes the processes involved in promoting an open, collaborative, knowledge-building orientation in learning activities (Levy & Petrulis, 2012). It could be argued that flipped environments have the capacity for building lifelong skills in 21st Century learners because the positive impact of communities of learners in the development of socially interactive, critical thinking, independent learners who demonstrate advanced information literacy (Wood & Levy, 2015).