The instructional strategy of “flipping the classroom” is one of those recommendations that seems on first consideration to make a lot of sense. The core idea hinges on the truth that classroom time with students is limited and efficient use must be made of this time. Instead of taking up a substantial amount of this time with teacher presentations, why not move the exposure to content outside of class time and use class time for more active tasks such as helping students who have problems and allowing students to engage in active tasks with other students? With easy access to tools for recording presentations and sharing recordings online, why not simply have educators share presentations with students and have students review this material before class? So, presentations were flipped from class time to settings that might have been more frequently used for homework.
This all seemed very rational. I cannot remember where I first encountered the idea, but I did purchase Flip Your Classroom (Bergman and Sams, 2012) written by the high school teachers who I believe created the concept. While I did use my blog and textbook to promote this approach, I must have always wondered. I wrote a blog post in 2012 commenting that flipping the classroom sounded very similar to my large lecture experience of presenting to hundreds of students and expecting that these students would have read the textbook before class. Again, the logic of following up an initial exposure with an anecdote-rich and expanded focus on key concepts seemed sound. However, I knew this was not the way many students used their textbooks and some probably did not even make the purchase, but I was controlling what I could control.
There have been hundreds of studies evaluating the flipping strategy and many meta-analyses of these studies. These meta-analyses tend to conclude that asking students to watch video lectures before coming to class is generally beneficial. I think many have slightly modified the suggested in-class component to expand the notion of greater teacher-student interaction to include a focus on active learning. Kapur et al (2022), authors of the meta-analysis I will focus on eventually, list the following experiences as examples of active learning – problem-solving, class discussions, dialog and debates, student presentations, collaboration, labs, games, and interactive and simulation-based learning activities.
The institution where I taught had a group very much interested in active learning and several special active learning “labs” were created to focus on these techniques. The labs contained tables instead of rows of chairs, whiteboards, and other adaptations. To teach a large class in this setting you had to submit a description of the active techniques you intended to implement. The largest classes (200+) I taught could not be accommodated in these rooms and I am not certain if I would have ever submitted a proposal anyway.
Kupar et al. (2022)
Kupar and colleagues found reason to add another meta-analysis to those already completed. While their integrated analysis of the meta-analytic papers concluded that the flipped classrooms have an advantage, Kapur and colleagues were puzzled by the great variability present among the studies. Some studies demonstrated a great advantage in student achievement for the flipped approach and some found that traditional instruction was superior. It did not seem reasonable that a basic underlying advantage would be associated with this much variability and the researchers proposed that a focus on the average effect size without consideration of the source or sources for this variability made little sense. They conducted their own meta-analysis and coded each study according to a variety of methodological and situational variables.
The most surprising finding from this approach was that the inclusion of active learning components was relatively inconsequential. Remember that the use of such strategies in the face-to-face setting was emphasized in many applications. Surprisingly, segments of lecture within the face-to-face setting were a better predictor of an achievement advantage. Despite the break from the general understanding of how flipped classrooms are expected to work, educators seemed to use these presentations to review or supplement independent student content consumption and this provided an achievement bump.
The active beneficial learning component found to make a difference involved a problem-based strategy and when the entire process began with a problem-based experience. This finding reminds me of the problem-based learning research conducted by Deanna Kuhn who also proposed that the problem-based experience start the learning sequence. Kapur used the phrase productive failure to describe the way struggling with a problem before encountering relevant background information was helpful. Kuhn emphasized a similar process without the catchy label and proposed the advantage was more a matter of the activation of relevant knowledge and guiding the interpretation of information within the presentation of content that followed.
Regarding the general perspective on the flipped model identified by Kapur and colleagues, their findings were less an indictment of the concept, but a demonstration of the lack of fidelity in implementations to the proposed advantage of using face-to-face time to interact and adjust to student needs. Increasing response to the needs of individual needs would seem beneficial and may be ignored in favor of activities that are less impactful.
References:
Kapur, M., Hattie, J., Grossman, I., & Sinha, T. (2022, September). Fail, flip, fix, and feed–Rethinking flipped learning: A review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 956416). Frontiers.
Pease, M. A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem?based learning. Science Education, 95(1), 57-86.
Wirkala. C. & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-Based Learning in K–12 Education: Is it Effective and How Does it Achieve its Effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1157–1186
