Rapid #: -11584573 CROSS REF ID: 501753 LENDER: DKC :: Main Library BORROWER: USD :: Main Library TYPE: Article CC:CCG JOURNAL TITLE: Journal of educational technology systems USER JOURNAL TITLE: Journal of educational technology systems ARTICLE TITLE: K-12 Teacher Perceptions Regarding the Flipped Classroom Model for Teaching and Learning. ARTICLE AUTHOR: Gough, Evan VOLUME: 45 ISSUE: 3 MONTH: YEAR: 2017 PAGES: 390- ISSN: 0047-2395 OCLC #: PATRON: De Jong, David Processed by RapidX: 2/24/2017 12:56:32 PM This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code) Article K-12 Teacher Perceptions Regarding the Flipped Classroom Model for Teaching and Learning Journal of Educational Technology Systems 2017, Vol. 45(3) 390–423 ! The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0047239516658444 journals.sagepub.com/home/ets Evan Gough1, David DeJong2, Trent Grundmeyer3, and Mark Baron2 Abstract A great deal of evidence can be cited from higher education literature on the effectiveness of the flipped classroom; however, very little research was discovered on the flipped classroom at the K-12 level. This study examined K-12 teachers’ perceptions regarding the flipped classroom and differences in teachers’ perceptions based on grade level and content area taught. A researcher-developed survey instrument was used to collect data from K-12 teachers that utilize a flipped classroom in Southwest and South Central Minnesota. Survey participants totaled 44, which included 27 high school teachers, 15 middle school teachers, and 2 teachers that identified as other. It was found that participants perceived that the flipped classroom creates time for varied instructional techniques, including active learning and higher order thinking, along with increased student-to-teacher interaction. The insights from the study inform teachers in the field about benefits and best practices in regard to the flipped classroom instructional model. Keywords flipped classroom, absent students, accessibility 1 Blue Earth Area Schools, University of South Dakota, MN, USA School of Education, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA 3 School of Education, Drake University, Des Moines, IA, USA 2 Corresponding Author: Evan Gough, Blue Earth Area Schools, University of South Dakota, 315 East 6th Street, Blue Earth, MN 56013, USA. Email: egough@beas.blueearth.k12.mn.us Gough et al. 391 Introduction Research has consistently shown that the classroom teacher can have the largest impact on gains in student learning (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollack, 2001). Marzano et al. (2001) provided teachers with many different research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. In later research, Marzano (2007) went on to say, “Arguably, keeping students engaged is one of the most important considerations for the classroom teacher” (p. 98). Marzano provided educators with many different ideas for the best ways to engage students in class, but educators were also cautioned that there is no one strategy that will work with each and every student. Teachers need to adjust strategies as they see fit, and this, according to Marzano, is the art of teaching. The flipped classroom model is one of the strategies some K-12 teachers have utilized to try to increase student achievement. The flipped classroom involves doing what has traditionally been done inside class outside of class, and doing what has traditionally been done outside class inside of class (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Berrett, 2012; Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Yee & Hargis, 2010). Defining a Flipped Classroom The flipped classroom is utilized to remove direct instruction from the classroom, which usually involves watching a recorded lecture as homework, and this creates time for more active learning activities in the classroom (Baker, 2000; Day & Foley, 2006; Gannod, Burge, & Helmick, 2008; Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight, & Arfstrom, 2013; Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000; Redekopp & Ragusa, 2013; Strayer, 2012; Vogel, 2012; Wentland, 2004; Zappe, Leicht, Messner, Litzinger, & Lee, 2009). Bergmann and Sams (2012) pointed out that a flipped classroom does not always involve the use of videos. The essence of the flipped classroom is moving the direct instruction and the lecture outside of the classroom and then providing active learning opportunities for students in the classroom (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Bergmann & Waddell, 2012; Brunsell & Horejsi, 2013; Foertsch, Moses, Strikwerda, & Litzkow, 2002; Milman, 2012). Lectures are teacher-centered, and they are an efficient method for delivering knowledge to students (Griffin, Mitchell, & Thompson, 2009; Kundart, 2012). Flipping the classroom changes the classroom to a learnercentered classroom (Valenza, 2012). Pierce and Fox (2012) pointed out that the flipped classroom removes passive learning from in-class time, and the increased in-class time for active learning allows instructors to engage students with higher order thinking (Bland, 2006; McDaniel & Caverly, 2010; Milman, 2012; Sherbino, Chan, & Schiff, 2013). Bergmann and Sams (2012) pointed out that there are many ways to flip a classroom. A flipped classroom model does not always involve having students watch video lectures outside of class. A major consideration for flipping the classroom is to take the focus away from the teacher and put the focus on 392 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) student learning (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Bland, 2006; Brunsell & Horejsi, 2011; Hamdan et al., 2013). In a flipped classroom, students cannot get away with being passive learners (Houston & Lin, 2012). Bergmann and Sams (2012) stated, “ . . . when learning is in the hands of the students and not in the hands of the teacher, real learning occurs” (p. 111). A reason often mentioned for flipping the classroom is the increased interaction that teachers can have with their students (Baker, 2000; Bowen, 2006; Brunsell & Horejsi, 2011; Carlisle, 2010; Gannod et al., 2008; Kaner & Fiedler, 2005; McDaniel & Caverly, 2010; Vogel, 2012), and the flipped classroom allowed teachers to act more like a mentor to students (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Frydenberg, 2012). Students also developed better relationships with their peers through cooperation and collaboration in class (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; McDaniel & Caverly, 2010; Vogel, 2012). By not delivering content during class time, teachers were allowed to work with struggling students and to differentiate instruction for students (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Gannod et al., 2008; Tucker, 2012). In a flipped classroom, teachers better managed discipline issues because they were not busy delivering a lecture to the entire class (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Recorded lectures tended to aid struggling students because they can rewatch portions of lessons that they do not understand (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Drumheller & Lawler, 2011; Kaner & Fiedler, 2005; Shumack & Reilly, 2011). Students were also able to watch lectures at a pace they prefer with the capability to pause and to rewind the lesson as they watch it, and they could watch the lecture when it worked in their schedule (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Edginton & Holbrook, 2010; Evans, 2008; Gannod et al., 2008; Goodwin & Miller, 2013; Kaner & Fiedler, 2005; McKinney, Dyck, & Luber, 2009). Flipping also made learning easier for absent students because of the availability of video lectures (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Drumheller & Lawler, 2011; Shumack & Reilly, 2011). Bergmann and Sams (2012) pointed out that flipping the classroom also created the opportunity to increase the involvement of parents in their child’s learning. Parents had the ability to watch the video lectures, which made the classroom more transparent. Increased transparency led to more discussions on student learning than on classroom behaviors. Blended or hybrid learning are other terms that can sometimes be associated with flipped classroom. Blended or hybrid learning is often simply defined as changing the way face-to-face interaction is handled in class by utilizing some component of web-based learning outside of class (Griffin et al., 2009; Horn & Staker, 2011; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Literature Review Some higher education studies found positive results with flipping the classroom. Lage et al. (2000) found that students felt their learning improved as a result of Gough et al. 393 the flipped classroom in an undergraduate economics course. Students in a flipped introductory Java course came to class better prepared to learn (Carlisle, 2010). According to Davies, Dean, and Ball (2013), learning was greater when they flipped their undergraduate spreadsheet course. Bland (2006) found that students in an undergraduate engineering course performed better and had deeper learning of topics in a flipped setting. Day and Foley (2006) found that students had significantly higher grades in a flipped human– computer interaction course. A study involving undergraduate bioscience does show that there were no differences in student performance when the course was flipped, and students in this study actually preferred a traditional lecture format to flipping the course (Stephenson, Brown, & Griffin, 2008). Less research exists on the flipped classroom at the high school level (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Based on the few studies identified at the high school level, positive results were found with the flipped classroom by two of the studies (Flumerfelt & Green, 2013; Fulton, 2012). Johnson and Renner (2012) did not find advantages to flipping a high school computer course. At this point, only three research studies were discovered that have been conducted on the flipped classroom at the K-12 level, and one study had contradictory results from the other two studies. Butrymowicz (2012) pointed out that the newness of the flipped classroom has led to the lack of research on it, and the research that has been conducted is not rigorous (Goodwin & Miller, 2013; Hamdan et al., 2013). According to Hew (2009), it is difficult to compare the use of podcasts in higher education to K-12 because of the lack of research at the K-12 level, and most research on flipped classrooms at the K-12 level is anecdotal (Milman, 2012). History of the Flipped Classroom Many consider Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams the founders of the flipped classroom (Milman, 2012; Valenza, 2012); however, the flipped classroom had existed for years. Bergmann and Sams (2012) even mentioned that many others before them flipped their classrooms. According to Berrett (2012), college instructors have been flipping classes for many years. Lage et al. (2000) described the inverted classroom that was used in the fall of 1996 at Miami University that was similar in methodology to what was described by Bergmann and Sams (2012). Baker (2000) discussed the same flipped classroom approach and pointed out that this approach allowed more time to apply concepts. Moving the lecture outside of the classroom, which opens up in-class time to apply what has been learned, achieved this. Strayer (2012) pointed out that teachers have often required students to read material prior to class in order to engage with in-class learning activities, and advances in technology over the past 40 years have made flipping even easier. Advances with audio and video technology in recent years have allowed the 394 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) utilization of the flipped classroom to increase (Baker, 2000; Davies et al., 2013; Fitzpatrick, 2012; Fulton, 2012; Gannod et al., 2008; Redekopp & Ragusa, 2013; Shumack & Reilly, 2011). Flipped Classroom Research in Higher Education Twenty-two studies were located on the flipped classroom in higher education. Studies examined many different areas of the flipped classroom. Some of the studies indicated improved student performance; however, other studies did not indicate improved student performance. Some of the studies in higher education did not discuss student performance. This section organized the studies into the following areas: flipped classroom higher education students performed better, flipped classroom higher education students performed the same, and other flipped classroom considerations in higher education. Flipped classroom higher education students performed better. A study of an undergraduate engineering course involved students completing learning activities to gain knowledge outside of class. In this flipped approach, the students did not watch video lectures. The in-class activities included higher order thinking activities, which included student collaboration to better understand course concepts. Students performed better in this setting, and the extra time in class allowed students to gain deeper learning (Bland, 2006). A study of an undergraduate course on human–computer interaction was conducted. One section of the course was set up as the experimental section in which in-class lectures were replaced with a web lecture, and in-class activities were completed instead of listening to the lecture. Students were expected to complete a homework assignment on the lecture prior to coming to class, which provided the motivation for watching the lecture. A control section listened to the lectures in class, and they were required to complete a lecture homework assignment as well. Students in the flipped section had significantly higher grades than the students in the traditional lecture section, and the students had a high approval for the web lectures and format of the flipped class (Day & Foley, 2006). Carlisle (2010) conducted a study in which undergraduate students in a computer course were assigned short videos to watch prior to class, and the goal of the videos was to introduce a new topic. Students in this course came to class better prepared, and they learned more in the class. Pierce and Fox (2012) discussed an undergraduate pharmacy course in which one topic was flipped. Four lectures were replaced with video lectures, and the in-class portion was replaced with problem-solving activities. Student performance on test questions related to this unit of study was higher when compared with the lecture format utilized when the course was previously taught. Survey results indicated that students preferred the flipped teaching model. Gough et al. 395 The instructors noted that the flipped classroom approach allowed for more student and instructor interaction. Research was conducted with an undergraduate spreadsheet course. One section of students was taught in a traditional manner, one section was taught with software simulation programs, and one section was taught in a flipped manner. The software simulation was not as beneficial to students as the other two methods. Student surveys did not show difference in favorability by the students in the traditional and flipped courses. Students felt they learned the same with both methods; however, based on course results, student learning was higher in the flipped section. The higher learning may be attributed to the fact that students can control the pace of the video lecture (Davies et al., 2013). Garver and Roberts (2013) described changing an undergraduate market research course from a traditional lecture course to a flipped course. Students watched a podcast prior to class and completed in-class learning activities. The authors reported that students perceived that they learn more in the flipped approach and enjoyed it more than listening to lectures in class. In this study, 94% of the students preferred the flipped classroom to the traditional approach, and the evaluations of the instructor were higher. Student assessment and project scores were higher, and the higher project scores indicated that students were able to demonstrate higher order thinking. Sherbino et al. (2013) described a flipped classroom that was utilized with medical students. Students watched a web lecture prior to class, and class time was used to work on various learning activities. Students reported being satisfied with the flipped classroom, and most of the students reported rewatching portions of the lectures. The instructors reported that learning was improved by introducing more higher order thinking into class as well as meeting individually with students during class. Flipped classroom higher education students performed the same. Vogt, Schaffner, Ribar, and Chavez (2010) investigated utilizing podcasts in place of in-class lectures with an undergraduate nursing course. In-class time was replaced with question and answer sessions along with discussing case studies. The results from this teaching method were compared with previous class results where a traditional lecture format was utilized. The students also completed a satisfaction survey at the end of the podcast study. Students in the podcast study scored the same on exams as students in the traditional lecture course. Students were satisfied with using podcasts in place of lectures, and they liked being able to listen to the podcasts on their own schedule. A study involving undergraduate students in an introductory psychology course was conducted. One group of students attended a traditional lecture, and another group was assigned to watch video lectures online and attend an active-learning session. No difference in test scores was found between the two groups; however, the tests may not have taken into account the learning that 396 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) occurred in the active learning sessions. The students liked the convenience of watching the videos online, but they preferred the live lecture over the web lecture (Jensen, 2011). O’Bannon, Lubke, Beard, and Britt (2011) studied flipping the classroom by replacing lectures with podcasts in an undergraduate technology course for teacher candidates. Some sections of the course received a traditional lecture while other sections viewed podcasts. The study found no significant difference in the learning of the students. Students reported that they were not comfortable replacing the lecture with a podcast, and that they would rather utilize podcasts for supplemental purposes. The instructors noted that flipping the classroom created more time for in-class activities as well as interaction between students and instructor. In an undergraduate computer organization and architecture course, about half of the in-class lectures were replaced with web videos that students watched prior to class. In-class activities were replaced with active learning activities, and according to student ratings, the in-class activities were the most beneficial component of the flipped approach. Student performance on exams was about the same in the flipped approach as it was in the traditional approach. Projects for this course involved higher order thinking, and project scores were significantly higher in the flipped approach (Redekopp & Ragusa, 2013). Other flipped classroom considerations in higher education. In an early study conducted on the flipped classroom, Lage et al. (2000) discussed an undergraduate economics course that was flipped in the fall of 1996. Survey results indicated that students preferred the flipped approach opposed to a traditional lecture approach, and students felt that they learned more because of the in-class learning activities. Female students reported learning more in the flipped format, and the instructors noted that female students participated more in the flipped approach. The instructors felt that students were more motivated, which was evident by the increased ownership that students took for their learning. Student interaction and co-operation in learning was greater with the flipped method, and increased student and teacher interaction was another benefit of the flipped classroom. The flipped classroom allowed the instructors to still cover the essential objectives they needed to cover, but with the added benefit of active learning activities to occur in class under the watchful eye of the instructor. This format may also be beneficial for students who struggle with learning. Foertsch et al. (2002) discussed a study that was conducted with an undergraduate computer science course that was turned into a flipped classroom. The two weekly lectures were replaced with web lectures, and the in-class time involved completing various problem-solving activities. A student survey indicated that students liked the ability to watch lectures at their own pace and on their own time. Students also could watch a lecture during the time of day most suitable for their learning. Students raised some concerns about the nature of the Gough et al. 397 flipped classroom, such as not being able to ask the instructor a question when viewing the lecture or not being focused on the web lecture. Overall, 59% of students surveyed felt that this class format positively impacted their learning, and 16% of the students felt it had a negative impact on their learning. In this study, 45% of students felt they had more interaction with the professor during the in-class problem solving sessions, and 31% felt they had less interaction with the instructor when compared with the traditional approach. Replacing a class lecture with a team lab session changed an undergraduate engineering course. Students watched the lecture through a web-based course management system. According to the instructors, the best part of this course change was the team lab sessions because they could interact closely with their students during the learning process. The instructors also liked that passive learning was replaced with active learning. At the end of the course, the instructors surveyed the students. The results of the survey indicated that 60% of the students enjoyed being able to control the pace of the lectures, and 78% of the students liked being able to watch the videos on their own schedule. Furthermore, 89% of the students reported rewatching portions of the video lecture that they did not understand. The students also reported liking the lab portion of the class (Moses, Litzkow, Foertsch, & Strikwerda, 2002). Goldberg, Haase, Shoukas, and Schramm (2006) discussed a physiology course for first-year medical students in which students were required to watch web lectures prior to attending class, and discussions and other activities would take place during class. In this course, half of the lectures were delivered traditionally in class, and the other half were viewed as web lectures. Students reported that they had a greater ability to apply what they had learned in the flipped classroom portion, and the instructor reported that students were more engaged during the flipped portion. Cole and Kritzer (2009) discussed a college course that was flipped. Students reported that they learned more with the in-class activities compared with the activities they normally completed in a traditional course. The students felt it was a better use of class time because they learned the basic concepts out of class, and they were able to apply those skills in class with the instructor present. In a pilot study with an undergraduate nursing course, two traditional lectures were replaced with podcasts. The in-class time consisted of clearing up any confusion from the podcast lectures. Students reported that they liked being able to rewatch portions of the lecture that they did not understand, and many students reported that the podcasts would be useful for reviewing course material at a later time. The students also reported that they liked being able to access lecture materials at various times and locations, but some students reported difficulties with technology. Some students did not like the inability to ask questions while viewing the lecture (McKinney & Page, 2009). An experiment was conducted with an undergraduate political economy course. Some in-class lectures were replaced with podcasts, which were assigned 398 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) to be viewed prior to class. In-class time was spent completing various learning activities. Based on survey results, students liked being able to control the pace of the lecture by stopping and rewinding it, and students liked being able to access the podcasts when and where they wanted to, which also aided absent students. The instructor felt that flipping the course in this manner allowed for more content coverage, and at the same time, student–instructor interactions were more positive in this course format (Taylor, 2009). Zappe et al. (2009) studied an undergraduate architectural engineering course that was flipped. Lectures were made available online for students, and in-class time was spent completing learning projects. Students reported rewatching various portions of the online videos to help their learning of course material. Most students found the flipped classroom to be beneficial, and the students felt that the spending in-class time for problem-solving activities was helpful. A college-level computer-programming course was flipped. Students were required to watch recorded lectures prior to class, and in-class time was devoted to instructor led discussion. Survey results indicated that students appreciated the before class video lecture, and they also liked the in-class discussions. The instructor felt that students reached a deeper level of understanding with this teaching method. The instructor also noted that a classroom could be flipped by assigning assignments in reading instead of videos; however, the assigned reading may not match what the instructor wants to emphasize in the learning process. The recorded lecture can emphasize those points (Ronchetti, 2010). Frydenberg (2012) flipped a spreadsheet portion of an undergraduate technology course. Instructional videos were created that students watched prior to class, and they were motivated to watch the videos due to in-class quizzes. During in-class time, activities that fostered active learning were utilized. A survey was conducted at the end of the semester to determine how the students viewed the flipped portion of class. Students felt they learned more in the flipped portion, and they also thought the class was more personal than a traditional course. Students felt more challenged and engaged by the flipped classroom, and they would like to participate in other flipped courses. Strayer (2012) compared an undergraduate statistics course in which some sections were flipped and others were taught in a traditional manner in which the direct instruction occurred during class time. He found that students in the flipped classroom experienced more co-operative learning and were also more open to co-operative learning than their traditionally taught counterparts. Students in the flipped classrooms were also more open to applying what they learned through the in-class activities, but students in the flipped classrooms often had more difficulty connecting the outof-class activities with in-class activities when compared with students in the traditional classrooms. Gough et al. 399 An undergraduate digital engineering course was flipped for portions of the course. The instructors utilized in-class collaborative activities, and based on pre- and postsurveys, students felt that this method is effective at increasing knowledge and skill growth along with creating a positive learning environment for students. The students also felt that the flipped classroom led to deeper learning of the course material (Warter-Perez & Dong, 2012). Flipped Classroom Research in K-12 Schools Flumerfelt and Green (2013) conducted a study with a ninth grade government class that attempted to reach more at-risk students by utilizing the flipped classroom to increase student engagement. In this class, there were no failures, and student success was 11% higher than in nonflipped government classes. This teaching method was later expanded to include other courses, and similar successes were found along with a 66% decrease in discipline referrals. The high school math department at Byron, Minnesota developed a digital math curriculum along with flipping their math classrooms. Students showed significant improvement in learning and achievement; however, it is hard to tell if this is due to flipping, the digital curriculum, or both. Students and parents appeared to be happy with the new teaching method; however, some parents were concerned about the hardships that the additional technology requirements may create at home (Fulton, 2012). In a 12-week study, two sections of a high school computer applications course were utilized. One section experienced a traditional classroom while the other section experienced a flipped classroom model. After 6 weeks, the sections experienced the other model. Based on observations, it appears that the students in the flipped classroom did not have a sense of responsibility for their learning. Student learning with either method was not significantly different, so the conclusion was that there is no benefit to flipping the classroom. It should be noted that a limitation to this study was that students were allowed to volunteer to participate in the flipped classroom study (Johnson & Renner, 2012). Flipped Classroom Considerations Bergmann and Waddell (2012) pointed out that some consider the lecture an ineffective form of instruction, especially when it takes the form of passive learning for students. In many flipped classrooms, the lecture becomes the centerpiece of the direct instruction that occurs outside of class, so in other words, the passive learning is removed from inside the classroom to outside the classroom. Griffin et al. (2009) pointed out that a bad video lecture, “which is boring and uninformative” (p. 538), can be detrimental to the flipped classroom approach. Day and Foley (2006) pointed out that the video lectures 400 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) may equate to passive learning, but the learner can at least pause and rewind the lecture to review difficult topics. Flipping may not work for every course (Strauss, 2012). Courses like math, science, and foreign language may be best suited for flipping, but it may work with any subject and any grade level (Bergmann & Waddell, 2012). Tucker (2012) cautioned that educators sometimes jump into the latest and greatest teaching strategy, which later turns out to be a fad. The flipped classroom places more responsibility for learning on students; however, teachers are ultimately responsible for the learning of their students (Bergmann & Waddell, 2012). Milman (2012) pointed out that students are not able to ask their instructor a question while they are viewing the lecture at home, and that English Language Learners may struggle with understanding the video. Read (2005) contended that English Language Learners may benefit from video lectures because they can watch them at their own pace and review sections of the lecture they did not understand. Due to income level or lack of Internet access, many homes lack the necessary technology to view video lectures (Bergmann & Waddell, 2012; Butrymowicz, 2012; Milman, 2012; Strauss, 2012). According to Bergmann and Sams (2012), a possible way to overcome this is by providing DVDs of the lectures. Another concern is that students may not watch the lecture at home; consequently, they will not be prepared for class (Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Strauss, 2012). Giving short quizzes may be one method that teachers can employ to encourage lecture watching outside of class (Zappe et al., 2009). Lack of Research in K-12 Schools Very little research exists on the flipped classroom at the K-12 level (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). At this point, only three studies have been discovered that were conducted on the flipped classroom at the K-12 level (Flumerfelt & Green, 2013; Fulton, 2012; Johnson & Renner, 2012). Butrymowicz (2012) pointed out that the newness of the flipped classroom has led to the lack of research on it, and the research that has been conducted is not rigorous (Goodwin & Miller, 2013; Hamdan et al., 2013). According to Hew (2009), it is difficult to compare the use of podcasts in higher education to K-12 because of the lack of research at the K-12 level, and most research on flipped classrooms at the K-12 level is anecdotal (Milman, 2012). For instance, Bergmann and Sams (2012) shared many of the positives that they experienced with their flipped classrooms at the K-12 level. They pointed out that flipping the classroom works based on their students’ test scores; however, this information is anecdotal. Little research on podcasts and other tools utilized to flip classrooms has been conducted (Alpay & Gulati, 2010; Heilesen, 2010; Redekopp & Ragusa, 2013). Gough et al. 401 Purpose of the Study This study was designed to investigate Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 teachers’ perceptions regarding the flipped classroom. The study also examined differences in those teachers’ perceptions based on grade level and content area taught. Research Questions The research questions for this study were determined by completing a review of the literature on the topic of the flipped classroom. The research questions for this study included the following: 1. What are K-12 teachers’ perceptions of the following potential benefits for students in the flipped classroom? 2. What are the participants’ perceptions of the following instructional considerations in the flipped classroom? 3. What are the participants’ perceptions of the following areas associated with learning in the flipped classroom? 4. What are the participants’ perceptions of the following student considerations in the flipped classroom? 5. What are the participants’ perceptions of the following parent considerations in the flipped classroom? 6. What are the differences of the participants’ perceptions of the flipped classroom based on grade level and content area taught? Significance of the Study Due to the lack of research on flipped classrooms at the K-12 level, it may be difficult for educators to determine if the flipped classroom is an effective method to utilize in their classroom. This study adds to the knowledge base of K-12 educators regarding the perceived effectiveness of flipped classrooms. Teachers, school leaders, school board members, and parents will have significant interest in the findings of this study as it relates to the use of the flipped classroom at the K-12 level. Participants Participants for this study were teachers in Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 districts that utilize a flipped classroom. The Minnesota Association of School Administrators Regions 2 and 3 (Appendix A) consist 402 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) of 70 K-12 school districts, and according to the Minnesota Department of Education, approximately 5,027 teachers are included in those school districts (Minnesota Department of Education, 2015). Teachers were only required to identify the grade level they teach and content area that they flip. Sampling techniques were not utilized in this study. Instrumentation A survey instrument (Appendix B) was created by the researcher, and validity was established by basing the survey on the review of related literature and research. Survey questions were placed on a matrix grid (Appendix C) to correlate with the research questions and related literature. The survey instrument utilized a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ Strongly Disagree, 2 ¼ Disagree, 3 ¼ Neutral, 4 ¼ Agree, and 5 ¼ Strongly Agree). The survey used multiplechoice questions to determine grade level and content area flipped. The survey instrument went through a critique process before data collection occurred. Panel members for the critique included six educators who were not part of the population to be studied. The panel included four teachers and two administrators with flipped classroom experience. Data Collection The survey instrument was administered to the participants through Google FormsÕ . Southwest and South Central Minnesota school district superintendents were e-mailed the survey cover letter, which included the link to the survey, and the superintendents were asked to forward through e-mail this information to the K-12 teachers in their district. The superintendents were informed that by forwarding the survey cover letter they were giving their teachers permission to participate in the study. A follow-up e-mail was sent 1 week after the initial e-mail, and a final e-mail inviting participation was sent 2 weeks after the initial e-mail. Data collection for the survey had a 3-week window. All responses to the survey were anonymous, and all of the data collection procedures followed Institutional Review Board standards. Data Analysis Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were utilized to analyze the data collected to answer the research questions. Research questions one through five were measured by using means and standard deviations for each of the areas investigated. Research question six was answered by utilizing t tests for independent samples, and the .05 level of significance was utilized for each statistical analysis. 403 Gough et al. Findings Teachers’ perceptions of the potential benefits for students in the flipped classroom. Table 1 provides a summary of the means and standard deviations of the various areas considered as potential benefits for students in the flipped classroom (research question 1). Teachers agreed most strongly in the area of the flipped classroom benefitting absent students (M ¼ 4.02). Teachers’ perceptions associated with instructional considerations in the flipped classroom. Table 2 provides a summary of the means and standard deviations of the various areas considered with instructional considerations in the flipped classroom (research question 2). Teachers agreed most strongly in the areas of active learning (M ¼ 3.98) and student-to-teacher interaction (M ¼ 3.98). Teachers’ perceptions associated with learning in the flipped classroom. Table 3 provides a summary of the means and standard deviations of the various areas considered with learning in the flipped classroom (research question 3). All three areas are near neutral, with passive learning (M ¼ 3.39) having the highest level of agreement. Teachers’ perceptions associated with student considerations in the flipped classroom. Table 4 provides a summary of the means and standard deviations of the various areas considered with student considerations in the flipped Table 1. Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of Potential Benefits for Students in the Flipped Classroom. Area Mean Standard Deviation Absent students Struggling students In-class and out-of-class time 4.02 3.89 3.59 0.76 0.81 1.06 Table 2. Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions Associated With Instructional Considerations in the Flipped Classroom. Area Mean Standard deviation Active learning Student to teacher interaction Time for learning Personalized learning 3.98 3.98 3.95 3.59 0.98 0.93 0.91 1.04 404 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Table 3. Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions Associated With Learning in the Flipped Classroom. Area Mean Standard deviation Passive learning Student learning English Language Learners 3.39 3.18 3.11 1.10 1.06 0.78 Table 4. Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions Associated With Student Considerations in the Flipped Classroom. Area Mean Standard deviation Accessibility to technology Student to student interaction Classroom discipline Student preference Student responsibility 3.95 3.45 3.00 2.98 2.98 1.03 0.85 0.92 0.79 0.95 Table 5. Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions Associated With Parent Considerations in the Flipped Classroom. Area Mean Standard deviation Parent involvement Parent or teacher conferences 3.66 2.95 0.94 0.81 classroom (research question 4). Teachers agreed most strongly in the area of accessibility to technology (M ¼ 3.95). The areas of classroom discipline (M ¼ 3.00), student preference (M ¼ 2.98), and student responsibility (M ¼ 2.98) are all at or near neutral. Teachers’ perceptions associated with parent considerations in the flipped classroom. Table 5 provides a summary of the means and standard deviations of the various areas considered with parent considerations in the flipped classroom (research question 5). Teachers agreed in the area of parent involvement (M ¼ 3.66), but they were near neutral in agreement on parent or teacher conferences (M ¼ 2.95). Differences in teachers’ perceptions of the flipped classroom based on grade level taught. The differences in perceptions of high school teachers and middle school teachers (research question 6) are summarized in Table 6. Other teachers (n ¼ 2) 405 Gough et al. Table 6. Differences of the Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Flipped Classroom Based on Grade Level Taught. Mean perceptions Area Absent students Accessibility to technology Active learning Classroom discipline English Language Learners In-class and out-of-class time Parent involvement Parent or teacher conferences Passive learning Personalized learning Struggling students Student learning Student preference Student responsibility Student to student interaction Student to teacher interaction Time for learning High school (n ¼ 27) Middle school (n ¼ 15) t df p 4.00 3.70 4.00 3.04 3.11 3.70 3.52 2.81 3.37 3.56 3.89 3.19 3.07 3.11 3.56 3.93 4.00 4.00 4.40 4.00 2.93 3.07 3.27 3.87 3.20 3.47 3.73 3.87 3.13 2.87 2.80 3.33 4.07 3.87 0.00 2.13 0.00 0.35 0.17 1.29 1.17 1.53 0.27 0.53 0.08 0.15 0.81 1.00 0.83 0.47 0.44 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 1.00 .04* 1.00 .73 .86 .21 .25 .13 .79 .60 .93 .88 .43 .32 .41 .64 .66 *Denotes significant difference at .05. are not included in this analysis, and no participants indicated elementary (n ¼ 0) as their grade level taught. In the area of accessibility to technology, the results of the t tests for independent samples indicated that middle school teachers (M ¼ 4.40) agreed significantly more strongly than high school teachers (M ¼ 3.70) that the flipped classroom is difficult for some students to access due to the additional technology required outside of school, t(40) ¼  2.13, p ¼ .04. No other comparisons produced significantly different perceptions between middle and high school teachers. Differences in teachers’ perceptions of the flipped classroom based on content area taught. The differences in perceptions of math teachers and other teachers, which include all content areas other than math, are summarized in Table 7 (research question 6). The results of the t tests for independent samples did not indicate a significant difference in mean perceptions for math teachers or other teachers in any of the flipped classroom areas that were examined. 406 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Table 7. Differences of the Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Flipped Classroom Based on Content Area Taught. Mean perceptions Area Absent students Accessibility to technology Active learning Classroom discipline English Language Learners In-class and out-of-class time Parent involvement Parent or teacher conferences Passive learning Personalized learning Struggling students Student learning Student preference Student responsibility Student to student interaction Student to teacher interaction Time for learning Math (n ¼ 22) Other (n ¼ 22) t df p 4.09 3.95 4.05 3.00 3.14 3.55 3.86 2.95 3.41 3.68 3.82 3.32 2.95 3.00 3.55 4.23 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.91 3.00 3.09 3.64 3.45 2.95 3.36 3.50 3.95 3.05 3.00 2.95 3.36 3.73 3.95 0.59 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.19 0.28 1.47 0.00 0.14 0.58 0.55 0.85 0.19 0.16 0.71 1.84 0.00 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 .56 1.00 .65 1.00 .85 .78 .15 1.00 .89 .57 .58 .40 .85 .88 .48 .07 1.00 Summary of Findings The following findings emerged through the data analysis: 1. The mean perceptions associated with the potential benefits for students included the areas of absent students (M ¼ 4.02), in-class and out-of-class time (M ¼ 3.59), and struggling students (M ¼ 3.89). 2. The mean perceptions associated with instructional considerations included the areas of active learning (M ¼ 3.98), personalized learning (M ¼ 3.59), student-to-teacher interaction (M ¼ 3.98), and time for learning (M ¼ 3.95). 3. The mean perceptions associated with learning included the areas of English Language Learners (M ¼ 3.11), passive learning (M ¼ 3.39), and student learning (M ¼ 3.18). 4. The mean perceptions associated with student considerations included the areas of accessibility to technology (M ¼ 3.95), classroom Gough et al. 407 discipline (M ¼ 3.00), student preference (M ¼ 2.98), student responsibility (M ¼ 2.98), and student-to-student interaction (M ¼ 3.45). 5. The mean perceptions associated with parent considerations included the areas of parent involvement (M ¼ 3.66) and parent or teacher conferences (M ¼ 2.95). 6. In the area of accessibility to technology, the results of the t tests for independent samples indicated that middle school teachers (M ¼ 4.40) agreed significantly more strongly than high school teachers (M ¼ 3.70) that the flipped classroom is difficult for some students to access due to the additional technology required outside of school, t(40) ¼  2.13, p ¼ .04. No other comparisons produced significantly different perceptions between middle and high school teachers. 7. No differences were found when examining differences in teachers’ perceptions based on content area taught. Conclusions This study indicated that the flipped classroom indeed benefits absent and struggling students. Previous research indicated that learning was easier for absent students due to the availability of video lectures (Bergmann & Samms, 2012; Drumheller & Lawler, 2011; Shumack & Reilly, 2011), and according to this study, teachers agree that the flipped classroom definitely benefits absent students. This study also indicated that students struggling with learning do benefit from the recorded lectures, and other research has demonstrated this as well (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Drumheller & Lawler, 2011; Kaner & Fiedler, 2005; Shumack & Reilly, 2011). One of the strongest areas of agreement in the study was in the area of instructional considerations, which included active learning, personalized learning, student-to-teacher interaction, and time for learning. Researchers have pointed out the benefits of utilizing active learning in the classroom (Freeman et al., 2007; Knight & Wood, 2005) along with the fact that active learning can lead students to higher order thinking (White, 2011). Based on this study, along with many others (Day & Foley, 2006; Drumheller & Lawler, 2011; Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Kaner & Fiedler, 2005; Lage & Platt, 2000; Valenza, 2012), utilizing the flipped classroom creates the necessary time to incorporate more active learning into the classroom. Teachers in this study also indicated that time was created to foster more interactions between teachers and students along with more personalized learning. Increased instructional time appears to be one of the most important considerations of the flipped classroom. 408 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) This study suggested that the flipped classroom does not necessarily improve learning over a traditional classroom. Other flipped classroom studies conducted in K-12 settings showed mixed results in the area of improving student learning (Flumerfelt & Green, 2013; Fulton, 2012; Johnson & Renner, 2012). It is worthy of note that this study found that teachers view the flipped classroom as a way to create more time for active learning activities, but at the same time, teachers did not find that the flipped classroom necessarily improves student learning. Other than technology accessibility issues, teachers in this study perceived student considerations in a flipped classroom similar to student considerations in a traditional classroom. It is interesting that teachers in this study did not see improved student discipline in a flipped classroom, especially when the teachers perceived an increase in student to teacher interaction in the flipped classroom. Bergmann and Sams (2012) pointed out that discipline issues could be better managed in a flipped classroom because the teacher is not wrapped up in delivering a lecture to the class. Other researchers mentioned accessibility issues due to technology requirements as being a potential barrier for students in the flipped classroom (Bergmann & Waddell, 2012; Butrymowicz, 2012; Fulton, 2012; Milman, 2012; Strauss, 2012), and this study clearly indicated that accessibility could be an issue for students. Another issue that appeared from this study is that middle school teachers view accessibility as more of an issue than high school teachers. It is unclear from the results of this study why this may be; however, it could be due to one-to-one computer programs being more prevalent in high school settings or that older students are more responsible for finding ways to overcome accessibility issues. Involving parents in the education of their children is an important consideration for all educators, and this study indicated that the flipped classroom does help make the classroom more transparent to parents. Bergmann and Sams (2012) pointed out that video lectures did increase transparency along with framing discussions with parents and teachers on learning instead of on behavior. The teachers in this study did not necessarily agree that discussions with parents centered more on learning. Results of the study indicated that teachers perceived the greatest advantages of the flipped classroom to be the benefit for absent students, increased time for active learning, increased student and teacher interaction, increased time for various learning activities, and struggling students benefitting from the ability to rewatch recorded lectures. Teachers agreed that accessibility to technology outside of school could be an issue for some students in a flipped classroom. Teachers disagreed most with parent or teacher conference discussion centering more on learning than on classroom behavior in a flipped classroom. Students preferring the flipped classroom and students being more responsible Gough et al. 409 for their learning followed this area of disagreement closely. Only one significant difference in perceptions existed in the study. Middle school teachers perceived more so than high school teachers that students have difficulty in accessing the flipped classroom outside of school due to technology requirements. Recommendations The aim of this study was to assess teachers’ perceptions regarding the flipped classroom and to examine differences in those teachers’ perceptions based on grade level and on content area taught. Teachers, school leaders, school board members, and parents should value the findings of this study as it relates to the use of the flipped classroom at the K-12 level. Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, three recommendations can be shared. First, teachers must carefully consider accessibility to the flipped classroom due to technological requirements. As noted in this study and others, Internet access to view videos and other flipped classroom resources is not always available for all students. Teachers must be conscious about the access to these resources that students may or may not have with a flipped classroom model. If a teacher chooses to utilize this model, they should be intentional about understanding which of their students may need supplemental access to the curriculum. Teachers, administrators, and school board members need to be educated on the fact that the flipped classroom may not improve student learning, but it does create increased time for active learning and for higher order thinking. Like any initiative, the purpose should be clear to all stakeholders. The flipped classroom model is no different and the expectation that student learning will increase (at least on standardized tests) is not reasonable. However, it is reasonable to convey and to demonstrate that students are more engaged in learning and spend more time on higher order thinking skills in a flipped classroom model. The final recommendation is for teachers to consider and school leaders to promote utilizing the flipped classroom to aid absent students. This study showed significant benefits for absent students in regard to making up missed classroom work and consequently learning new concepts and skills. School leaders should promote this model with their teachers and provide necessary resources to develop flipped classroom lessons. Appendix A: Southwest and South Central Minnesota School Districts Included In Study. Adrian Schools Atwater-Cosmos-Grove City Schools 410 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Belle Plaine Schools Benson Schools Bird Island-Olivia-Lake Lillian Schools Butterfield-Odin Schools Canby Schools Cedar Mountain Schools Cleveland Schools Clinton-Graceville-Beardsley Schools Comfrey Schools Dawson-Boyd Schools Eden Valley-Watkins Schools Fairmont Area Schools Fulda Schools Gibbon-Fairfax-Winthrop Schools Glencoe-Silver Lake Schools Heron Lake-Okabena Schools Hutchinson Schools Ivanhoe Schools Jackson County Central Schools Jordan Schools Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg Schools Lac qui Parle Valley Schools Lake Benton Schools Lake Crystal Wellcome Memorial Schools Lakeview Schools Le Sueur-Henderson Schools Lester Prairie Schools Litchfield Schools Luverne Schools Lynd Schools MACCRAY Schools Madelia Schools Mankato Schools Maple River Schools Marshall Schools Martin County West Schools Milroy Schools Minneota Schools Montevideo Schools Mountain Lake Schools Murray County Central Schools New London-Spicer Schools Nicollet Schools Gough et al. 411 NRHEG Schools Ortonville Schools Pipestone Area Schools Red Rock Central Schools Redwood Area Schools Renville County West Schools Round Lake-Brewster Schools Russell-Tyler-Ruthton Public Schools St. Clair Schools St. James Schools St. Peter Schools Sibley East Schools Springfield Schools Tracy Area Schools Tri-City United Schools Truman Schools United South Central Schools Wabasso Schools Waseca Schools Waterville Elysian Morristown Schools Westbrook-Walnut Grove Schools Willmar Schools Windom Schools Worthington Schools Yellow Medicine East Schools Note. The Blue Earth Area School District is included in MASA Region 2. This school district was not included in the study because the researcher is the Superintendent of Blue Earth Area Schools. Appendix B: Study Survey. Southwest and South Central Minnesota K-12 Teachers’ Survey on Flipped Classrooms Directions: For Question 1, please choose the response that best describes your teaching. For this study, a flipped classroom is defined as a classroom where work that is traditionally completed in-class is assigned as homework, and what is traditionally assigned as homework is completed in class. * Required 412 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Gough et al. 413 414 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Gough et al. 415 416 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Appendix C: Research Question/Study Survey Matrix Grid Appendix C. Research question Survey question Resource 1,2,3,4,5,6 1 6 6 1 2 3 4 4 5 Bergmann and Sams (2012) Berrett (2012) Herreid and Schiller (2013) Yee and Hargis (2010) Bergmann and Waddell (2012) Strauss (2012) Bergmann and Sams (2012) Drumheller and Lawler (2011) Shumack and Reilly (2011) Bergmann and Waddell (2012) Butrymowicz (2012) (Continued) 417 Gough et al. Appendix C. Continued Research question Survey question 2 6 4 7 3 8 1 5 3 9 10,11 12 2 13 1 14 3 15 Resource Fulton (2012) Milman (2012) Strauss (2012) Baker (2000) Bland (2006) Day and Foley (2006) Gannod et al. (2008) Garver and Roberts (2013) Goldberg et al. (2006) Hamdan et al. (2013) Lage et al. (2000) McDaniel and Caverly (2010) Milman (2012) Moses et al. (2002) Redekopp and Ragusa (2013) Ronchetti (2010) Sherbino et al. (2013) Strayer (2012) Vogel (2012) Warter-Perez and Dong (2012) Wentland (2004) White (2011) Zappe et al. (2009) Bergmann and Sams (2012) Flumerfelt and Green (2013) Milman (2012) Read (2005) Bergmann and Sams (2012) Bergmann and Sams (2012) Houston and Lin (2012) Pierce and Fox (2012) Bergmann and Sams (2012) Gannod et al. (2008) Tucker (2012) Valenza (2012) Bergmann and Sams (2012) Drumheller and Lawler (2011) Kaner and Fiedler (2005) Shumack and Reilly (2011) Flumerfelt and Green (2013) Fulton (2012) (Continued) 418 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Appendix C. Continued Research question Survey question 4 16 4 17 4 18 2 19 Resource Bland (2006) Carlisle, 2010 Davies et al., 2013 Day and Foley (2006) Garver and Roberts (2013) Pierce & Fox, 2012 Sherbino et al. (2013) Fulton (2012) Day & Foley (2006) Frydenberg (2012) Garver and Roberts (2013) Lage et al. (2000) Pierce and Fox (2012) Ronchetti (2010) Sherbino et al. (2013) Vogt et al. (2010) Warter-Perez and Dong (2012) Zappe et al. (2009) Herreid and Schiller (2013) Johnson and Renner (2012) Strauss (2012) Bergmann and Sams (2012) McDaniel and Caverly (2010) Vogel (2012) Baker (2000) Bergmann and Sams (2012) Bowen (2006) Brunsell and Horejsi (2011) Carlisle (2010) Frydenberg (2012) Gannod et al. (2008) Kaner and Fiedler (2005) McDaniel and Caverly (2010) Vogel (2012) Frydenberg (2012) Lage et al. (2000) Moses et al. (2002) O’Bannon et al. (2011) Pierce and Fox (2012) Sherbino et al. (2013) Taylor (2009) (Continued) 419 Gough et al. Appendix C. Continued Research question 2 Survey question Resource 20 Baker (2000) Day and Foley (2006) Drumheller and Lawler (2011) Gannod et al. (2008) Herreid and Schiller (2013) Kaner and Fiedler (2005) Lage and Platt (2000) Valenza (2012) Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Alpay, E., & Gulati, S. (2010). Student-led podcasting for engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(4), 415–427. Baker, J. W. (2000). The classroom flip: Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. In J. A. Chambers (Ed.), Selected papers from the eleventh international conference on college teaching and learning (pp. 9–17). Jacksonville, FL: Florida Community College. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Bergmann, J., & Waddell, D. (2012). Point/counterpoint: To flip or not to flip?. Learning and Leading with Technology, 39(8), 6–7. Berrett, D. (2012, February 19). How flipping the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com. ezproxy.usd.edu/article/How-Flipping-the-Classroom/130857/ Bland, L. (2006, June). Applying flip/inverted classroom model in electrical engineering to establish lifelong learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Chicago, IL. Abstract retrieved from http://search.asee.org/ search/fetch;jsessionid¼1sxufmrg6fjuh?url¼file%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FE%3A% 2Fsearch%2Fconference%2F12%2F2006Full859.pdf&index¼conference_papers& space¼129746797203605791716676178&type¼application%2Fpdf&charset¼ Bowen, J. A. (2006). Teaching naked: Why removing technology from your classroom will improve student learning. National Forum for Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 1–15. Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2011). Flipping your classroom. The Science Teacher, 78(2), 10. 420 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2013). A flipped classroom in action. The Science Teacher, 80(2), 8. Butrymowicz, S. (2012, June 12). Promise of the flipped classroom eludes poorer school districts. Hechinger Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/promise-of-theflipped-classroom-eludes-poorer-school-districts/ Carlisle, M. D. (2010, March). Using YouTube to enhance student class preparation in an introductory java course. Paper presented at the Forty-first ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, WI. doi: 10.1145/ 1734263.1734419 Cole, J. E., & Kritzer, J. B. (2009). Strategies for success: Teaching an online course. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(4), 36–40. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Education Technology Research and Development, 61, 563–580. Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a humancomputer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420–431. Drumheller, K., & Lawler, G. (2011). Capture their attention: Capturing lessons using screen capture software. College Teaching, 59, 93. Edginton, A., & Holbrook, J. (2010). A blended learning approach to teaching basic pharmacokinetics and the significance of face-to-face interaction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(5), 1–11. Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 491–498. Fitzpatrick, M. (2012, June 24). Classroom lectures go digital. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/us/25iht-educside25.html?_r¼0 Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2013). Using lean in the flipped classroom for at risk students. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 356–366. 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. Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, D. H., Haak, D., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 132–139. Frydenberg, M. (2012, November). Flipping excel. Paper presented at 2012 Information Systems Educators Conference, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://proc.isecon.org/2012/pdf/1914.pdf Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning and Leading with Technology, 39(8), 13–17. Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008, May). Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. Paper presented at the Thirtieth International Conference on Software Engineering, Leipzig, Germany. doi: 10.1145:1368088.1368198 Garver, M. S., & Roberts, B. (2013). Flipping and clicking your way to higher-order thinking. Marketing Education Review, 23(1), 17–22. Goldberg, H. R., Haase, E., Shoukas, A., & Schramm, L. (2006). Redefining classroom instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(3), 124–127. Gough et al. 421 Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 78–80. Griffin, D. K., Mitchell, D., & Thompson, S. J. (2009). Podcasting by synchronizing PowerPoint and voice: What are the pedagogical benefits? Computers & Education, 53, 532–539. Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. M. (2013). The flipped learning model: A white paper based on the literature review titled ‘a review of flipped learning’. Retrieved from http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/ Centricity/Domain/41/WhitePaper_FlippedLearning.pdf Heilesen, S. B. (2010). What is the academic efficacy of podcasting? Computers and Education, 55(3), 1063–1068. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–67. Hew, K. F. (2009). Use of audio podcast in K-12 and higher education: A review of research topics and methodologies. Education Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 333–357. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-Riseof-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf Houston, M., & Lin, L. (2012). Humanizing the classroom by flipping the homework versus lecture equation. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2012 (pp. 11771182). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Jensen, S. A. (2011). In-class versus online video lectures: Similar learning outcomes, but a preference for in-class. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 298–302. Johnson, L. W., & Renner, J. D. (2012). Effect of the flipped classroom model on a secondary computer applications course: Student and teacher perceptions, questions and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). University of Louisville. Retrieved from https://theflippedclassroom.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/johnson-renner-2012.pdf Kaner, C., & Fiedler, R. L. (2005). Inside out: A computer science course gets a makeover. Paper presented at the twenty-eighth convention of the association for educational communications and technology, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://kaner.com/pdfs/ kanerfiedleraectprint.pdf Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298–310. Kundart, J. (2012). Khan academy and flipping the classroom. Optometric Education, 37(3), 104–106. Lage, M. J., & Platt, G. J. (2000). The Internet and the inverted classroom. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 11. 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. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 422 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 45(3) Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McDaniel, S., & Caverly, D. C. (2010). Techtalk: The community of inquiry model for an inverted developmental math classroom. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(2), 40–41. McKinney, A. A., & Page, K. (2009). Podcasts and videostreaming: Useful tools to facilitate learning of pathophysiology in undergraduate nurse education? Nurse Education in Practice, 9(6), 372–376. McKinney, D., Dyck, J. L., & Luber, E. S. (2009). iTunes university and the classroom: Can podcasts replace professors? Computers and Education, 52(3), 617–623. Milman, N. B. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used? Distance Learning, 9(3), 85–87. Minnesota Department of Education. (2015). District/school 2014-15 licensed staff FTE by assignment. Retrieved from http://w20.education.state.mn.us/MDEAnalytics/Data.jsp Moses, G., Litzkow, M., Foertsch, J., & Strikwerda, J. (2002, November). eTeach—A proven learning technology for education reform. Paper presented at the thirty-second ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, Boston, MA. Retrieved from http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi¼10.1.1.20.6654 O’Bannon, B. W., Lubke, J. K., Beard, J. L., & Britt, V. G. (2011). Using podcasts to replace lecture: Effects on student achievement. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1885–1892. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning and environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–233. Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a flipped classroom model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), 1–5. Read, B. (2005). Lectures on the go. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(10), A39–A42. Redekopp, M. W., & Ragusa, G. (2013). Evaluating flipped classroom strategies and tools for computer engineering. Paper presented at the one hundred twentieth ASEE conference and exposition, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/7063/view Ronchetti, M. (2010). Using video lectures to make teaching more interactive. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5(2), 45–48. Sherbino, J., Chan, T., & Schiff, K. (2013). The reverse classroom: Lectures on your own and homework with faculty. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 178–180. Shumack, K. A., & Reilly, E. (2011). Video podcasting in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(1), 39–43. Stephenson, J. E., Brown, C., & Griffin, D. K. (2008). Electronic delivery of lectures in the university environment: An empirical comparison of three delivery styles. Computers & Education, 50(3), 640–651. Strauss, V. (2012, June 7). Flipping classrooms: Does it make sense? The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/flipping-classrooms-does-it-make-sense/2012/06/06/gJQAk50vJV_blog.html Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193. Gough et al. 423 Taylor, Z. M. (2009). Podcast lectures as a primary teaching technology: Results of a oneyear trial. Journal of Political Science Education, 5(2), 119–137. Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom: Online instruction at home frees class time for learning. Education Next, 12(1). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/the-flippedclassroom/ Valenza, J. K. (2012). The flipping librarian. Teacher Librarian, 40(2), 22–25. Vogel, L. (2012). Educators propose ‘flipping’ medical training. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(12). doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4212 Vogt, M., Schaffner, B., Ribar, A., & Chavez, R. (2010). The impact of podcasting on the learning and satisfaction of undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(1), 38–42. Warter-Perez, N., & Dong, J. (2012, April). Flipping the classroom: How to embed inquiry and design projects into a digital engineering lecture. Paper presented at the 2012 ASEE PSW section conference, San Luis Obispo, CA. Retrieved from http://aseepsw2012.calpoly.edu/ site_media/uploads/proceedings/papers/10B_35_ASEE_PSW_2012_Warter-Perez.pdf Wentland, D. (2004). A guide for determining which teaching methodology to utilize in economic education: Trying to improve how economic information is communicated to students. Education, 124(4), 640–648. White, G. (2011). Interactive lecturing. The Clinical Teacher, 8(4), 230–235. Yee, K., & Hargis, J. (2010). Youtube and video quizzes. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(2), 9–12. Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. W. (2009, June). “Flipping” the classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. Paper presented at 2009 American society for engineering education annual conference & exposition, Austin, TX. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/4545 Author Biographies Evan Gough is the Superintendent for Blue Earth Area Schools in Minnesota. He was a graduate student at the University of South Dakota, USA. David DeJong is an assistant professor for the School of Education at the University of South Dakota, USA. Trent Grundmeyer is an assistant professor for the School of Education at Drake University, USA. Mark Baron is the associate dean for the School of Education at the University of South Dakota, USA.