New Orleans, Louisiana
June 26, 2016
June 26, 2016
August 28, 2016
Educational Research and Methods
This research paper describes an investigation into the impacts of a flipped pedagogy on student-perceived classroom climate. Flipped classrooms have gained considerable attention lately. It has been shown that delivering technical content via online modules frees up class time for active learning and increases both peer interaction and student-faculty interaction. Here we ask the question: Does the flipped model also increase the supportive nature of the learning environment. Classroom climate, as well as self-efficacy and value, have been shown to improve students motivation for learning. We used the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) to assess the classroom climate in both the flipped class and various control classes that were not flipped. This inventory includes seven psychosocial dimensions of classroom climate: personalization, involvement, student cohesiveness, satisfaction, task orientation, innovation, and individualization. Our specific research questions were: 1. Do students perceive a more positive classroom climate in a flipped classroom vs. a traditional lecture-based course when controlled for course content and instructor? 2. What psychosocial dimensions were most impacted by the flipped pedagogy?
One group of students (Group “A”) had just completed the flipped course. The second group (Group “B”) consisted of students who had just completed the same course, but taught in a traditional format. This was to control for the effect of the course material on students’ motivation and interest. The third group (Group “C”) consisted of students who had just completed a different engineering course taught by the same instructor in a traditional format. This was to control for a different instructor. The groups were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA. The responses were analyzed based on each of the seven subscales within the CUCEI, as well as on an overall score combining all seven subscales.
Our results show significant difference between the three groups based on overall score and on some of the subscales. Turkey post-hoc tests reveal that Group A (flipped) is significantly different from both Group B and Group C based on overall scale and in the individualization subscale. We observe significant differences only between the A and B or C for Involvement, Student Cohesiveness, Task Orientation, and Innovation. We observed no significant differences between these groups in the subscale of Satisfaction and Personalization.
The implications of these findings on flipped classrooms are important to those faculty wishing to flip their course. An improvement on the Individualization subscale indicates that students are allowed to make decisions and are treated differentially according to ability, interest, and of rate of working in a flipped classroom. This shows that a flipped classroom can be tool for differentiating instruction in engineering classrooms. We will discuss the implications of this study on the other subscales and how the flipped classroom can be altered to possibly increase these subscales as well.
Velegol, S. B., & Zappe, S. E. (2016, June), How Does a Flipped Classroom Impact Classroom Climate? Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10.18260/p.25479
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2016 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015