!"##$#% '()*+ ,-./01 23 34,.

15/0',67

8















The Impact of Flip Teaching on Students Perceptions of Learning
and Academic Achievement in a Science 10 Class
Kate Ropchan
ETEC 500, Section 65E
April 2013
University of British Columbia















,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

9
Introduction
The traditional lecture/homework model of teaching involves a lecture given by teachers
that takes up the majority of the class, followed by limited time for practice by students.
Consequently, students need to do their assignments practicing course concepts at home. This
becomes problematic if students get home and realize that they dont understand what they need
to do. Thus, perhaps the best time to do what has traditionally been considered homework
activities is during class time, when students are able to get help from a teacher and their peers.
This led to the question of how to move lecture delivery of course content outside of class time
to allow the primary focus within the classroom to be creating a deeper understanding of course
concepts.
Emerging technological advances have led to the development of the flipped classroom, a
reverse teaching strategy in which teachers record lectures on video and post them online, rather
than lecturing during class time. Alternatively, pre-recorded videos created by another educator,
such as those provided by the Khan Academy can be posted for students to watch. Students view
the videos at home prior to coming to class and then spend class time enriching their
understanding through active learning exercises, collaborative activities, labs, discussions, and
other practical applications.
The flipped classroom approach, also known as flip teaching, the inverted classroom
or reverse instruction, has a number of proposed benefits. These include increased time for
teacher-student interaction, allowing students to work at their own pace, giving students the
ability to easily catch up if they miss classes, increasing collaborative learning during class time,
and increasing parental involvement as parents can also watch the instructional videos.
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

:
Potential drawbacks of this teaching strategy arise when students dont watch the
instructional videos during their own time, either because they dont do their homework or dont
have access to technology. Additionally, teaching by lecture, whether in person or on video, is
still a traditional, didactic philosophy. Is this truly the best method for students to learn?
I am very interested in the flipped classroom, as a few of my co-workers are currently
experimenting with this teaching strategy. In my school, it has had varying levels of
effectiveness in different classes, depending on how it has been implemented. I define
effectiveness as showing higher academic achievement of classes using this model versus the
traditional lecture/homework teaching model and having positive perceptions of this model
expressed by students. Technological advances, and changes in prevailing attitudes about who is
responsible for student learning have led me to investigate this new pedagogical strategy in my
own Science 10 classroom.
Problem Statement
Interest in how to balance the delivery of course content with the richness of in-class
learning activities led to the primary focus question: To what extent does the flipped classroom
teaching model impact the learning environment in a Science 10 classroom? The following sub
questions were developed: (1) What are student perceptions of the flipped classroom model as
compared to the traditional lecture/homework model? and (2) What is the impact of the flipped
classroom approach on academic achievement?
Critical Review of the Literature
Academic research into the effectiveness of flipped high school classes is relatively
limited at present, with the majority of commentary coming in the form of informal sources
online such as blogs. Although the topic of flip teaching is a relatively new phenomenon, studies
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

;
that have implemented the use of this approach at the university level can provide background
for future research. I will review these studies according to the following questions: (1) What are
students perceptions of the flipped classroom approach to learning? and (2) What is the impact
of the flipped classroom approach on academic achievement? These two questions will also
guide my further research.
Student perceptions of the flipped classroom approach
Lage, Platt, and Treglia introduced the concept of the inverted classroom in 2000 at
Miami University with their introductory Microeconomics courses. In their study, students
accessed lecture material through PowerPoint presentations with recorded audio, or recorded
video lectures before coming to class. Class time was then dedicated to answering students
questions, conducting economics experiments, and completing worksheets and review questions
which could be answered individually or in groups. Lage et al. (2000) claim that this teaching
model is suited to all learning styles because it blends a variety of different teaching and learning
approaches. In this study, inverted teaching was used by 2 instructors in 5 classes consisting of
about 40 students each, after which survey data was collected to gauge student perceptions of the
inverted model. Results suggest that students preferred the flipped classroom to the traditional
lecture, enjoying the collaborative environment and the one-to-one support afforded by the
inverted model (Lage et al., 2000).
Foertsch, Moses, Strikwerda, and Litzkow (2002) investigated whether students gave
high ratings to an undergraduate computer studies class that was taught using the flipped model.
In Fall 2000, 539 students who were enrolled in Computer Studies 310 at University of
Wisconsin-Madisons College of Engineering had their in-class lectures replaced with
videotaped lectures and other instructional materials that students viewed online in their own
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

<
time. Live class periods were then used for small collaborative problem-solving sessions.
Surveys were filled out at the end of the course by 529 of the 539 students, and 8 students were
selected for in-depth interviews. Results indicate that the majority of students gave all aspects of
the course high ratings, including usefulness, professor responsiveness, and the course overall
(Foertsch et al., 2002).
A limitation of the studies described so far is the lack of a control group where students
received the traditional lecture/homework method of instruction. Thus while students indicated a
preference for the flipped classroom, there is not a frame of reference that allows a comparison
of results between the traditional and flipped models. The following four studies have a control
group, where traditional instruction is delivered during class time, in addition to the group
receiving instruction under the flip teaching approach.
Ronchetti (2010) noticed that students were frequently absent from their introductory
programming class at Universita de Trento in Italy, and wondered if the flipped method of
teaching would help to address this problem. A pilot study of one class period was conducted in
2008 where students were required to watch a pre-recorded lecture on one topic prior to
attending class, allowing class time to be freed up for collective discussion. To determine what
students thought about this different instructional style, an anonymous survey was distributed to
the 60 students in the class, of which 38 students responded. Questionnaire responses indicated a
70-85% appreciation of the in-class group discussions afforded by the flipped model. However,
85-92% of student responses indicated a preference for the traditional lectures over the flipped
approach because students felt that traditional lecture instruction led to a better understanding of
course concepts (Ronchetti, 2010). Thus while students appreciated the interactive class-time,
they felt that pre-recorded lectures did not explain the content as well as face-to-face delivery. It
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

=
is worth noting that the validity of these results is limited because the flipped approach was only
used for one class period, in one class, and only 38 out of 60 students actually responded to the
survey.
Strayer (2012) investigated how learning in an inverted classroom influences innovation,
cooperation, and task orientation. His research was a mixed-methods comparative study of the
learning environments of two college-level introductory statistics classes: one taught to 26
students under a traditional lecture-homework approach and the other to 23 students using an
inverted approach. Quantitative data was collected using a survey, and qualitative data was
collected using audiotapes of each class, a reflective teacher journal, the field notes of four
researchers that observed several class meetings, and student focus group interviews by three of
the researchers. Quantitative results showed that the majority of students in the inverted class
preferred an environment with greater innovation and cooperation when compared to the
traditional class. Qualitative results showed that the varied activity in the inverted class led
students to indicate that they didnt know what to expect or where class was going. Students,
however, adapted their learning strategies and saw value in helping each other learn through
cooperation and collaboration. The class was taught with a loose, informal approach in both
sections, which students in the inverted classroom commented negatively on, whereas students in
the traditional classroom reported enjoying the informal nature of the class. Inverted classroom
students showed higher levels of participation and group cooperation than traditional class
members, who preferred to remain quiet in class. Strayer (2012) notes that he did not assign
students randomly to either the lecture-based or inverted classroom, and measures were not taken
to ensure that the classes were equivalent in terms of student composition, which limits the
generalizability of these results.
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

>
Sadaghiani (2011) conducted research with calculus-based physics classes at California
State Polytechnic University in Pomona, California. Research involved an experimental study in
which the 34 students in the experimental section were asked to view web-based multimedia
learning modules (MLMs) prior to attending class while the 48 students in the non MLM-
viewing class served as a control. Both classes met twice a week but the control class met for 25
minutes extra each class. All other aspects of the course including in-class examples, homework
assignments, exams, and the instructor were the same for both sections. At the end of the quarter,
students in both sections filled out a survey about the usefulness of different course components
and students in the experimental group answered additional survey questions about their
experience with the MLMs. Results indicated that students in the MLM class seemed to be more
engaged with questions and group discussion than the control group, perhaps due to their prior
preparation via the MLMs. About 60% of the students in the MLM section strongly preferred the
MLM delivery of content compared to 25% who strongly preferred pure face-to-face lectures.
Open-ended survey feedback indicated that several students preferred the conciseness of the
MLMs over the textbook content, and many students appreciated the fact that they could view
the MLMs anywhere, anytime, and as many times as they wanted (Sadaghiani, 2011, p. 5).
Frederickson, Reed, and Clifford (2005) investigated the effects of web-supported
learning versus lecture-based teaching with 16 students enrolled in a graduate professional
training course in educational psychology at University College London. Eight students were
randomly assigned to an experimental group that received lectures online, and the other eight
students made up the control group, which received lectures in class. Both groups were given a
pre-test prior to content delivery, and a post-test after six one-hour lecture sessions spread out
over three weeks. The groups were then switched, and the process was repeated with new course
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

?
material. Thus a second pre-test was administered to both groups, the group that had received
web-based teaching in the first half of the course now received lecture teaching, and the group
that had received lecture teaching now received the web-course. Following the three weeks of
teaching that made up the second half of the course, all participants received a post-test. All pre-
and post-tests administered checked for understanding of course concepts, and levels of anxiety
with statistics. Post-tests also asked for feedback on satisfaction with the learning experience.
Results indicated no significant differences in anxiety levels, confidence with statistics, or
satisfaction with the course taught via the web versus taught with the lecture-approach. Similar
to results obtained by Ronchetti (2010), written qualitative feedback indicated a preference for
the traditional lecture over the flipped approach, but students strongly appreciated the
helpfulness of peer collaboration that occurred in the web-taught version of the course
(Frederickson et al., 2005). The impact of the flipped teaching model on academic performance
will be discussed in the next section.
Impact of the flipped classroom approach on academic achievement
One of the biggest concerns for educators considering a new teaching format is whether
the new teaching model will have a positive effect on academic achievement. The following
research studies examine the effect that an inverted style of teaching had on measurements of
students understanding.
In the research study of 16 graduate students previously described by Frederickson et al.
(2005), participant knowledge of course material was assessed by two paper-based multiple-
choice tests, each containing 30 questions that covered the material in the first and second halves
of the course. After statistical analysis, researchers determined that there was little difference in
the scores either before or after teaching with the flipped group versus the traditional lecture
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

@
group. Thus in this study, learning under the flipped model did not have any effect on academic
achievement (Frederickson et al., 2005). However, the small sample size and short duration of
the study represent important limitations. Problems may also be identified with the knowledge
test, which was used as both a pre- and post-test with the same questions. Increases in scores
over time may have been due to practice effects or familiarity with the questions.
Do internet-delivered video lectures prepare students for exams as effectively as live in-
class lectures? Lents and Cifuentes (2009) sought an answer for this question in their study of a
majors-level introductory biology course in the spring of 2008. Twenty-four City University of
New York students were enrolled in one section of Biology 104 that became the experimental
group, receiving web-based delivery of course content. Fifty-nine students enrolled in two other
sections of the course that were taught together comprise the control group, which received in-
class lecture delivery by the same instructor as the web-based teacher. The groups were
determined to be equivalent to each other based on students performance in the pre-requisite
Biology course the previous semester, and academic performance in the separate lab component
of Biology 104 (Lents & Cifuentes, 2009). Five exams were administered to students in both the
control and treatment groups throughout the semester. No significant differences were found on
exam marks based on whether students attended in-class lectures or viewed them online. Thus
video lectures seem to be just as effective for learning course material as in-class lectures. An
anonymous survey of learning gains also indicated that the majority of students strongly agree
that the use of video lectures improved their learning in the course, and that video lectures
prepared them much better for exams than traditional in-class lectures. It is important to note that
halfway through this study, students in the experimental group were given the choice of also
attending live lectures. This muddles the results because after this point it was no longer an
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

8A
experimental study with two distinct groups. Many students in the experimental group also chose
to attend classroom lectures so learning gains in the experimental group may have been due to
the multiple exposures to course content, rather than the method of delivery.
Published articles about the flipped teaching approach are primarily at the university level,
rather than examining the impact on high school classes. Alvarez (2011) did report the effects of
a flip teaching model on the failure rates of Clintondale high school students in a suburb of
Detroit. Teachers at this school recorded the percentage of students that failed their class one
year (under the traditional lecture/homework model) followed by the percentage of students that
failed their class the following year (using the inverted instructional strategy). In English
Language Arts, the percentage of students failing fell from 52% to 19%; in math, failure rates
dropped from 44% to 13%; in science, failures declined from 41% to 19%, and in social studies,
fewer than 10% of students failed, compared to nearly a third the previous year (Alvarez, 2011).
These results provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of the flip teaching approach on
academic achievement. However, not enough details are given to determine if classroom
conditions were controlled from one year to the next, and if students were comparable both years.
Several themes emerge from the literature on flipped classrooms. Under certain
conditions, changing to a flipped model of teaching may lead to a decline in failure rates of
students (Alvarez, 2011), perhaps because this approach affords students the ability to easily get
caught up if they miss class, learners can pause and rewind lecture videos and re-watch them to
increase their understanding, and in-class time is spent on productive, collaborative exercises
intended to enrich understanding. Other studies did not indicate a change in academic
achievement due to inverted instruction (Frederickson et al., 2005; Lents & Cifuentes, 2009).
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

88
These were at the university level, however, so further research is necessary to determine if this
would apply to secondary students in a flipped classroom.
An important consideration when deciding to adopt the flipped teaching approach is
whether students will prefer this method versus traditional instruction. Overall, feedback on the
flipped classroom approach has been quite positive, indicating that many students prefer this
teaching model versus traditional instruction (Foertsch et al., 2002; Lage et al., 2000; Lents &
Cifuentes, 2009; Sadaghiani, 2011). Studies where students preferred traditional lectures
indicated that learners still highly valued the collaborative learning activities afforded by the
inverted instructional approach (Frederickson et al., 2005; Ronchetti, 2010; Strayer, 2012). This
seems to indicate that students see the benefits of the extra time spent in class practicing course
concepts, but there may be a need for better instructional videos. Perhaps as technology
continues to evolve, it will be possible to make pre-recorded videos that are interactive, allowing
students to ask questions as they watch or complete a short multiple choice quiz to check their
understanding and correct any misconceptions.
The flip teaching approach is still relatively new, but the proliferation of blogs about it
online indicate that several teachers are trying it out at the high school level. Gaps in the research
indicate the need for an experimental study within the secondary classroom. The goal of my
research is to contribute a view of a controlled study of a flipped secondary science class.
Research Method
Due to the nature of the questions guiding this research, it is necessary to investigate the
learning environments of classroom flip and traditional lecture-homework structured classes
using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Academic achievement will be
measured by comparing the results of pre-tests and post-tests of two Science 10 units of study
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

89
within flipped and traditional classes, and student surveys and interviews will be used at the end
of the second unit to determine whether students preferred a flipped classroom or traditional
learning approach. My hypothesis is that Science 10 students in a flipped classroom will show
higher academic achievement and greater satisfaction with this instructional approach than
Science 10 students in a traditional lecture/homework classroom.
The two units of study within this Science 10 research will be Chemistry and Physics. In
British Columbia, Science 10 is composed of four main topics: Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and
Earth Science. From my six years experience teaching Science 10, I have found that Chemistry
and Physics are the topics that require the greatest amount of direct instruction. Other, more
constructivist approaches have been successful in my classes for the Biology and Earth Science
components of Science 10.
Four classes will take part in this study; two will receive direct instruction on Chemistry
concepts and complete practice questions for homework, while two will receive their instruction
through pre-recorded videos that students watch in their own time, allowing class-time to be
spent on collaborative learning activities to clarify Chemistry concepts. Once the Chemistry unit
is concluded, classes will switch instructional methods for the Physics unit. Classes previously
receiving direct instruction will now learn under a flipped approach, while the previously
inverted sections will take on the traditional lecture/homework method of instruction.
Participants
As a Science, Math, and Psychology teacher at a school where I have worked for the past
eight years, I will conduct this study on four blocks of students during the 2013-2014 school year.
The learners that I will study are Science 10 students at a secondary school in Langley, British
Columbia that is on a linear schedule. The research will take place from September to February
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

8:
during the 2013-2014 school year. Random selection from the school population of
approximately 350 grade 10 students will place 30 students in each of my four Science 10 classes.
Science 10 students were chosen as participants because this class is a provincially
examinable course in British Columbia, and the curriculum is packed with so many learning
outcomes that it can be difficult to teach all of the required material while still allowing time for
labs, projects, and completion of assignments during class time. When I heard about the flipped
classroom teaching approach, Science 10 immediately came to my mind as a course that could
potentially benefit from this new instructional method.
Participants will be informed at the beginning of the school year that they are the subject
of a research study, and will be given the chance to switch classes if they do not wish to
participate. A letter will also be sent home to parents informing them about the teaching
approaches that will be used, and asking parents to consent to their childs participation. All
participants will be assured of confidentiality and protection from harm to ensure that ethical
guidelines are followed.
Instruments
Academic achievement in Science 10 will be assessed by means of multiple-choice
paper-and-pencil tests. These tests will each contain 40 questions that cover the material in the
two units of study. Similar versions, with different questions but the same concepts will be used
as pre and posttests. Thus four tests will be required a pretest about Science 10 Chemistry, a
posttest on Science 10 Chemistry, a pretest about Science 10 Physics, and a posttest on Science
10 Physics.
Course member perceptions of aspects of their learning experience will be obtained in
three ways. First, at the end of the second unit of study (Physics), five items will be presented in
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

8;
a rating scale questionnaire format to assess aspects of satisfaction within the course. The five-
point scale will range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Participants will be asked to
consider their experience of Science 10 since September and rate the following for each of the
flipped instructional unit and the traditional homework/lecture unit: enjoyment, interest,
motivation, sense of achievement, and effectiveness of learning. Scores on each item will be
summed and averaged to produce a summary score for satisfaction within each instructional
approach ranging between 1 and 5. Secondly, open-ended feedback will be invited in response to
questions about which instructional method the student preferred. Third, select students will be
interviewed to provide further data about student perspectives of the learning environment.
Procedure
At the beginning of the school year, 120 grade 10 Science students will be selected from
a population of approximately 350 tenth grade students at the school. Selected students will be
divided into four blocks of 30 students each, as I will be teaching four blocks of Science 10. All
groups will cover the same subject matter and use the same textbook. The groups will have the
same length, frequency, and amount of classes, which will be held in the same room at different
times, and I will be the instructor for all four sections.
Two classes will be randomly selected to learn the Chemistry Unit using the traditional
lecture/homework method of instruction while the other two classes will receive flip teaching.
Prior to any instruction, a Chemistry pretest will be delivered to all four blocks to assess prior
knowledge. At the end of the Chemistry unit, a posttest will be administered to all four blocks to
assess a measure of academic achievement and knowledge of course concepts in the Chemistry
10 unit. The next unit of study will be Physics, and students will be pretested prior to any
instruction to determine their prior knowledge of Physics 10 concepts. Experimental and control
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

8<
groups will switch so that students previously receiving traditional teaching will now learn under
a flipped approach, and students previously in the inverted group will now learn under the
traditional lecture/homework model. Once the Physics unit is concluded, students will be given a
posttest to measure academic achievement and learning gains in the Physics 10 unit of study.
Surveys will also be given to students to determine the method of instruction that they preferred,
and random selection of a sub-set of students for interviews will delve further into questions
about differences in the two learning environments.
Research Design and Analysis
The quantitative method used for this research will be a pretest-posttest control group
design to control for threats to internal validity. Random assignment will control for regression
and selection factors, the pretest will control for mortality and testing, and the control group will
control for maturation, history, testing, and instrumentation. Experiment designs of this nature
risk a possible interaction between the pretest and the treatment, which may make the results
generalizable only to other pretested groups. The possible pretest interaction is likely to be
minimized by the nonreactive nature of the pretest, however, since chemistry and physics
questions can be manipulated with several different chemical formulas or numerical data.
Additionally, the length of the study should be sufficient to minimize the effect of the pretest.
The control and experimental groups will switch after the first unit of study, as shown in
Figure 1, to allow students to make a better informed decision about which instructional method
they preferred. This may also help to determine if the flipped classroom approach is more
suitable for instruction of Chemistry or Physics course concepts. Surveys and interviews will be
conducted after the conclusion of the second unit of study to gauge students perceptions of the
different learning environments. The design is illustrated below:
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

8=

Group 1 Group 2
Chemistry Pretest Multiple Choice Chemistry Test 1
Teaching of Chemistry Unit
(Sept. Nov. 2013)
Lectures in Class,
Homework at Home
Lectures on Video at Home,
Learning Activities in Class
Chemistry Posttest Multiple Choice Chemistry Test 2
Physics Pretest Multiple Choice Physics Test 1
Teaching of Physics Unit
(Dec. Feb. 2013)
Lectures on Video at Home,
Learning Activities in Class
Lectures in Class,
Homework at Home
Physics Posttest Multiple Choice Physics Test 2
Survey Questionnaire about Satisfaction With Course
and Instructional Method
Interviews Further Questioning About Students Perceptions of the Flipped
Classroom Versus Traditional Lecture/Homework
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the design of the study
Data will be collected in the form of multiple-choice tests to determine the academic
achievement of students under both a traditional and flipped approach. The pretest will be used
to see if the groups are essentially the same in terms of their Science academic achievement at
the start of the unit of study. If they are, then posttest scores can be directly compared using a
t test and if they are not, then analysis of covariance will adjust posttest scores for initial
differences on pretest scores.
Students preferred method of instruction will be determined using survey data and
student interviews. Questionnaire scores will be summed and averaged to determine the
satisfaction level of students receiving Chemistry instruction using a traditional
lecture/homework approach, students learning about Chemistry within a flipped classroom,
students studying Physics with a traditional approach, and students receiving inverted Physics
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

8>
instruction. Flipped classroom scores can then be averaged for both the Chemistry and Physics
units, as can traditional lecture/homework scores.
This study is limited in design because I am both the teacher and the researcher. I attempt
to address this limitation by using anonymous surveys and test data, rather than teacher
observations. It may become an issue during student interviews, however, if students are
reluctant to be forthcoming with criticisms of the course since I control the grade they receive.
Thus it may be more effective to have a colleague conduct the student interviews, rather than
conducting them myself. Additionally, I will promise students that I will not listen to the
interview tapes until after I have submitted their grades for the semester.
Schedule of Activities
A timeline is provided in the appendix, breaking down the schedule for each component
of the research.
Discussion
The hypothesis of this study is that Science 10 students in a flipped classroom will show
higher academic achievement and greater satisfaction with this instructional approach than
Science 10 students in a traditional lecture/homework classroom. Previous literature on this topic
has shown various success rates of a flipped classroom approach on academic performance
(Alvarez, 2011; Frederickson et al., 2005; Lents & Cifuentes, 2009). However, many students
prefer this teaching model versus traditional instruction (Foertsch et al., 2002; Lage et al., 2000;
Lents & Cifuentes, 2009; Sadaghiani, 2011) and students recognize the value of the collaborative
learning activities afforded by the inverted instructional approach (Frederickson et al., 2005;
Ronchetti, 2010; Strayer, 2012).

,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

8?
The findings of this study will carry great significance because there is a lack of research
on the flipped classroom at the high school level. Experimental studies exist at the university
level, but secondary teachers do not currently have scientific data about the effectiveness of this
new teaching style. Adding to the research on this topic will help me to determine whether I wish
to continue using this teaching approach in the future, and it may impact the decision of other
high school teachers thinking about trying a flipped classroom approach.

,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

8@
References
Alvarez, B. (2011) Flipping the classroom: Homework in class, lessons at home. Education
Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(8), 18-21. Retrieved from
http://neapriorityschools.org/successful-students/flipping-the-classroom-homework-in-
class-lessons-at-home-2
Foertsch, J., Moses, G., Strikwerda, J., & Litzkow, M. (2002). Reversing the lecture/homework
paradigm using eTEACH web-based streaming video software. Journal of Engineering
Education, 91(3), 267-274.
Frederickson, N., Reed, P., & Clifford, V. (2005). Evaluating web-supported learning versus
lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Higher Education,
50(4), 645-664.
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.
Lents, N., & Cifuentes, O. (2009). Web-based learning enhancements: Video lectures through
voice-over PowerPoint in a Majors-level Biology course. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 39(2), 38-46.
Ronchetti, M. (2010), Using video lectures to make teaching more interactive. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5(2), 45-48. doi:10.3991/ijet.v5i2.1156
Sadaghiani, H. R. (2011). Using multimedia learning modules in a hybrid-online course in
electricity and magnetism. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research,
7(1) 010102-1-010102-7.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation
and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193.
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

9A
doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4

,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

98
Appendix
Timeline for the Research:
June, 2013 Students learn about their courses for the following year in July, so I will need to
work with my schools counselling department in June to randomly select 120
students, divided into 4 blocks, for participation in this study. I will then
randomly assign two groups to initially comprise the experimental group and
two groups that will initially be part of the control group.
July
August, 2013
My time off work during July and August will be spent pre-recording Chemistry
and Physics lectures to use in my flipped classroom blocks.
September,
2013
At the beginning of the school year in September, I will inform students and
their parents about my research, and seek consent for participation. Then I will
administer a Chemistry pretest to all four of my Science 10 classes, and make
careful note of the results.
September
November,
2013
September to November will be spent teaching students Chemistry concepts by
one of the two instructional methods, either flip teaching or the traditional
lecture/homework approach.
End of
November,
2013
A Chemistry posttest will be administered to all four of my Science 10 classes
and then I will compare the results of the pretests and posttests. If the
experimental and control groups are essentially the same in terms of their
Chemistry scores on the pretests, then posttest scores can be directly compared
using a t test and if they are not, then I will use analysis of covariance to adjust
posttest scores for initial differences on pretest scores.

Next, I will give all my Science 10 students a pretest for the Physics unit.
Control and experimental groups will switch roles so that students receiving
inverted instruction will now learn under a traditional lecture/homework
approach, and vice versa.
November,
2013
February,
I will teach Physics 10 concepts to the new experimental group using a flipped
approach, and to the new control classes using a traditional lecture/homework
model.
,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

99
2014
End of
February,
2014
A Physics posttest will be administered to my four blocks of Science 10. Once
again, I will compare the results of the pretests and posttests, but for Physics this
time, to determine if a t test or analysis of covariance is required. I will then
use the appropriate statistical analysis to analyze my results.

I will hand out questionnaires to all of my Science 10 students, and then analyze
the data. I will sum the questions scores, and average them to provide a
numerical score for the satisfaction level of the course while taught under each
instructional method. I will also analyze written responses to look for themes
that emerge in the data. Finally, I will randomly select a subset of ten students to
interview about their experiences learning under each instructional method.
March
May, 2014
This time is allotted to spend analyzing my results and preparing a written report.

,-./01 23 34,. 15/0',67

9:
Sample of survey to be used in the research: