Abstract:

The need to adapt university education to the European Higher Education Area implies a deep change to classroom dynamics. In this context, new training and education systems are proliferating –in particular, blended learning strategies, where students are an active and important part of their learning process (Thuy et al., 2017). This blending learning is used to complement the traditional learning –lectures– in order to increase the student performance (O´Flaherty and Phillips, 2015). In particular, the flipped classroom method in a clear manifestation of this blending learning, existing a growing body of research that focus on this topic (DeLozier and Rhodes, 2017).

Although there is a lack of consensus on the exact definition of flipped classroom, since there is no single model related to this method (Tucker, 2012), it “refer to the practice of assigning lectures outside of class and devoting class time a variety of learning activities” (DeLozier and Rhodes, 2017, p.141). This new paradigm enables students to adapt to the current challenges related to the increases in economic and business competitiveness, social and labor flexibility. Particularly, technological progress is one of the main factors in the change of teaching methodologies, since new information technologies have become a key instrument for the acquisition of different skills in a responsible and autonomous manner (Hao, 2016; Thuy Thi Thai et al., 2017).

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the existing knowledge on flipped classroom method and learning outcomes, and analyze the main factors of student participation in this blending learning activities and its impact on learning outcomes. This aim want to fill a gap existing in the literature, since many studies point out that there is a little evidence related to student learning outcomes in a flipped classroom versus traditional classroom (DeLozier and Rhodes, 2017; Thuy Thi Thai et al., 2017). For this, the curriculum is divided between traditional lectures and flipped classroom method and student performance is verified comparing student marks in both learning systems. Our sample is 254 students on the Degree in Labor Relations and Human Resources during the academic year 2017/18.

The results show that the students who participate more actively in the preparation of the flipped classroom, obtaining better results and a greater level of learning, measured by the grade obtained in the final exam of the subject.
As a general rule, the flipped classroom is better prepared by the older students, with previous experience in preparing the subject, since they take more interest in the subject, and in the morning shift.

References:
[1] DeLozier, S. and Rhodes, M.G. (2017). Flipped classroom: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Education Psychology Review, 29, 141-151.
[2] Hao, Y. (2016). Exploring undergraduates’ perspectives and flipped learning readiness in their flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 82-92.
[3] O´Flaherty, J. and Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classroom in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95.
[4] Thuy Thi Thai, N., De Wever, B., and Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126.
[5] Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12, 82-83.

Keywords:

Flipped classroom, learning outcome, higher education.