Abstract:

The flipped classroom model changes the lecture-centered mode of instruction to a student-centered learning approach that actively promotes an instructional design involving interactive pedagogy and technology. Specifically, flipping the classroom reverses the traditional model of in-class lecture followed by homework, and shifts towards digitally-based homework as learning activities prior to the physical class, where students have to apply the knowledge learned by themselves through collaborative activities. Recent work on flipped classroom provides evidence of the increasing usage of the model in higher education. Yet, the number of systematic studies into its effectiveness as a pedagogical approach in this context is relatively small. Authors on this subject mainly discuss what characterizes the flipped classroom, how to design it, and what benefits can be expected from this model. Although flipped learning holds promise as an innovative approach that facilitates teaching and learning, several limitations and contingencies regarding its implementation are also recognized in the literature. As such, introducing the flipped classroom model can mean additional work and may require new skills for the instructor. Moreover, flipped classroom principles and elements must be carefully integrated for students to understand and engage in the model and be motivated to prepare for the class. These barriers frequently cause that teacher-centered and unidirectional instruction remains a common practice. According to the perspective adopted in this study, approaching the flipped model slowly can mitigate this challenging learning curve both for instructors and students. This learning process and, thus, the design and implementation of the flipped model, might be even harder in the higher education context, since the model has only recently migrated to higher education from K-12. In this paper, the authors suggest that the flipped classroom might be one part of a larger inquiry or instruction cycle encompassing different instructional states and migration mechanisms across states, consistent with the assumption that a flipped classroom model must be progressively incorporated to reduce the impact of barriers to change the traditional mode of instruction in higher education. Drawing on Lewin’s (1951) longstanding characterization of change as broadly involving the stages of “unfreezing,” “moving,” and “refreezing,” the aim of this study is to develop an instructional transformation model that could systematically guide instructors in transiting from traditional classroom state to flipped classroom state in higher education institutions. After identifying the key constructs (i.e., instructional state variables) that define the different instructional states and act as antecedents to flipped classroom model development, the authors argue that each state exhibits different construct levels and varied performance. They explicitly model migration paths as influenced by instructional tools (i.e., migration strategies) and explore which migration strategies may be the most effective for influencing migration mechanisms. A description of migration mechanisms reflecting unique patterns of change in state variables that lead to migration is also proposed. Finally, theoretical implications as well as insights and implications for educators are discussed.

References
[1] Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science, New York: Harper & Row.

Keywords:

Flipped learning, instructional states, migration mechanisms, higher education.