FUTURE RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS The implementation of the flipped classroom reveals

several implications for further research. Although this type of learning is becoming increasingly commonplace as a means of meeting the needs of today’s students, most participants are still used to traditional methods of learning and may offer

some resistance to instruction provided this way, particularly in STEM areas where underlying content is expected to be rule and procedure-based. Future research should focus on the impact of implement-ing the flipped classroom as a “continuum” process, ranging from didactic-led to a blended approach to a flipped classroom-only setting to determine if a slower transition can ease student anxiety toward learning via these new methods. Longitudinal re-search in this area may be beneficial for determining if the same issues occur when students have been introduced to flipped classroom learning at younger ages. Future studies also should focus on the delivery method of the content, alternate types and roles of technology, and differences in outcomes based on the technology and methods used.

Further research should focus on the impact of flipped classrooms on individual learning, and provide a foundation for more research on group variables. The active experimentation and real world experiences of the flipped classroom’s in-class setting provide the basis of learning through con-structionism and constructivism (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Using flipped classrooms as the instructional model to support constructivist learning means that learners are responsible for their own learning, thus strengthening self-regulatory skills needed in pro-fessional settings (Loyens et al., 2008). In addition, this student-centered learning is often conducted in collaborative student groups. Inquiry is needed on both the process and products related to collabora-tive learning embedded within flipped instruction.

CONCLUSION

The use of a technology supported flipped class-room is an alternative way to engage students in active learning that will promote critical thinking and problem solving skills necessary for success in the 21^st century. In this chapter, we focus on one type of flipped classroom, used in a higher education STEM class, developed across three terms and replicated across two semesters to

docu-Flipping STEM Learning

ment benefits and limitations to the approach, the role of the video lectures in the approach, and the process of active learning within the classroom.

Both students and faculty perceived ben-efits to this model. Students viewed the online video lectures as a resource that reinforced and expanded their conceptual understanding of the course material, but did not see the videos as a validated way of transferring new content. They still wanted access to the instructor for direct transfer of basic content and skills. Although in reality, the approach allowed them more access to instructor expertise, there appeared to be a need for continued confirmation of concept understanding that they only perceived as being met if it was a face-to-face transfer. Many students noted that unrestricted access to the online lectures facilitated knowledge rehearsal, increased hands-on practice by freeing up class time, and helped to develop self-regulated learning. Students found the use of the online video lectures to be most helpful when studying for quizzes and tests, particularly noting the capability of re-watching the videos and reconstructing what they wanted/needed to cover.

Half of the students indicated they did not find learning from online lectures more difficult than learning from traditional lectures; however, when asked about barriers to learning, the majority of students were consistent with their preference for traditional lectures, and were not comfort-able using the online lectures as their primary forum for what they perceived to be the transfer of content. Other specific limitations or concerns to using the online videos included the delivery of information and the structure of the listing of the videos on YouTube. Comments from many students suggested that blending the flipped and traditional classroom approach might be beneficial in providing some of the structure with which they are familiar while continuing to promote and transition to self-regulated learning in the flipped

classroom. These issues increase the importance of the role of technology in supporting and forming a blended transitional flipped classroom.

Despite the continuation of the need for the traditional affirmation of expertise, the students indicated the value of gaining experience in col-laborative and problem-solving skills that are to be expected when they are on-the-job. The value of this collaborative hands-on approach offered by a flipped classroom was further verified as students gained confidence in their ability to function as a team and to use team monitoring of progress. Approximately one-third of the students transferred this outside the required flipped set-ting and continued to use these skills elsewhere.

The ability of technology to provide flexibility in synchronous and asynchronous instructor/student interaction could be harnessed to address these communication concerns. Additional multime-dia uses including just-in-time audio and video recordings of demonstrations and group work could be developed.

Student expectations of and prior experience with what is considered an appropriate instruc-tional setting also appears to play a role in the ac-ceptance of flipped classrooms. As noted, during the second replication, students, even though new to the class, were more accepting of the approach.

This may be related to instructor comfort level, but also might indicate a higher level of student experience. As the use of flipped classrooms expand in secondary education settings, and as more use is experienced in post-secondary educa-tion settings, students’ comfort levels and prior experience will shift. These shifts may be further related to changes in motivation, expectation, and students’ learning style preferences. As the use of flipped classrooms increases, as student and faculty expectation and comfort levels are met, it can be expected that even greater evidence of constructivist learning will be evidenced.

Flipping STEM Learning

REFERENCES

Brown, C. J., Hansen-Brown, L. J., & Conte, R.

(2011). Engaging millennial college-age science and engineering students through experiential learning communities. Journal of Applied Global Research, 4(10), 41–58.

Bull, G., Ferster, B., & Kjellstrom, W. (2012).

Inventing the flipped classroom. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40, 10–11.

Carpenter, J. P., & Pease, J. S. (2012). Sharing the learning. Kappan Magazine, 94, 36–41.

Cheng, Y. B. (2006). New paradigm of learning and teaching in a networked environment: Impli-cations for ICT literacy. In L. T. Wee Hand & R.

Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Literacy in Technology at the K-12 Level. Hershey, PA: IDEA Group, Inc. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-494-1.ch001

Chirinian, A. (2012, December 6). Time to con-sider the flipped STEM classroom. Retrieved from http://www.teachstemnow.com/?s=time+to+con sider+the+flipped+STEM+classroom

Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An ex-ample of constructionist learning for adults. Edu-cational Technology Research and Development, 58, 755–780. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9165-2 Connor, K. A., Berry, F. C., Chouikha, M. F., Newman, D. L., Deyoe, M. M., Anaya, G., &

Brubaker, W. (2011). Using the mobile studio to facilitate non-traditional approaches to education and outreach. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-ing of the ASEE Conference. Vancouver, Canada.

Cook, D. A., Garside, S., Levinson, A. J., Du-pras, D. M., & Montori, V. M. (2010). What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Medical Education, 44, 765–774. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x PMID:20633216

Donahue, P. J., & Crosby, M. E. (2013). Developing a culturally-rich interactive model for mlearning.

In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Pedagogical applications and social effects of mobile technology integra-tion (pp. 206–224). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2985-1.ch012

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learn-ing and teachLearn-ing styles in engineerLearn-ing education.

English Education, 78(7), 674–681.

Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out:

Flip your classroom to improve student learning.

Learning and Leading with Technology, 39, 12–17.

Guthrie, E. R. (1952). The psychology of learning (Revised ed). Boston, MA: Harper Bros.

Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Introduction. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Onchwari, J.

(2009). Technology and student learning: Toward a learner-centered teaching model. AACE Journal, 17(1), 11–22.

Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2008). Relationships between students’

conceptions of constructivist learning and their regulation and processing strategies. Instructional Science, 36, 445–462. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9065-6

Flipping STEM Learning

Newman, D., Clure, G., Deyoe, M. M., & Connor, K. (2012). Using technology in a studio approach to learning: The importance of learner charac-teristics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the EdMedia World Conference. Austin, TX.

Newman, D., Clure, G., Deyoe, M. M., & Connor, K. (2013). Using technology in a studio approach to learning: Results of a five year study of an innovative mobile teaching tool. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Pedagogical applications and social effects of mobile technology integration (114-132). Her-shey, PA: IGI Global.

Newman, D., & Gullie, K. (2009). Using construc-tivist methods in technology-supported learning:

Evidence of student impact. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.

Pape, L., Sheehan, T., & Worrell, C. (2012). How to do more with less lessons from online learning.

Learning and Leading with Technology, 39, 18–22.

Phillips, R., McNeill, M., Gosper, M., Woo, K., Preston, G., & Green, D. (2007). Staff and student perspectives on web-based lecture technologies:

Insights into the great divide. In Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Conference.

Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/confer-ences/singapore07/procs/phillips.pdf

Rodd, J., & Newman, D. (2009). The impact of multi-media on learning specific to user charac-teristics. Paper presented at the Annual Confer-ence of the American Evaluation Association.

Orlando, FL.

Rycik, J. A. (2012). Building capacity for reform.

Secondary Education News & Views, 40, 80–82.

Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy:

Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Edu-cational Technology, 42(2), 71–75.

Simba Information. (2011, November 28). Flipped classroom offers new learning path. Electronic Education Report, 18, 1–3.

Splan, R. K., Shea Porr, C. A., & Broyles, T. W.

(2011). Undergraduate research in agriculture:

Constructivism and the scholarship of discovery.

Journal of Agricultural Education, 9, 56–65.

doi:10.5032/jae.2011.04056

Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15, 171–193. doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4

Swan, K. (2011). Technology and information literacy. Journal of Information Fluency, 1(1), 4–9.

Tucker, C. R. (2012). Blended learning in grades 4-12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

United States Department of Education. (2010).

Transforming American education: Learning pow-ered by technology. Retrieved from http://www.

ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010-execsumm.

pdf

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Won Hur, J., & Anderson, A. (2013). iPad in-tegration in an elementary classroom: Lesson ideas, successes, and challenges. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Pedagogical applications and social effects of mobile technology integration (pp. 42-54).

Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive per-spective. Educational Psychologist, 30, 217–221.

doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3004_8

Flipping STEM Learning