Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 450–459 | Cite as

Performance and Perception in the Flipped Learning Model: An Initial Approach to Evaluate the Effectiveness of a New Teaching Methodology in a General Science Classroom

  • David González-Gómez
  • Jin Su Jeong
  • Diego Airado Rodríguez
  • Florentina Cañada-Cañada


“Flipped classroom” teaching methodology is a type of blended learning in which the traditional class setting is inverted. Lecture is shifted outside of class, while the classroom time is employed to solve problems or doing practical works through the discussion/peer collaboration of students and instructors. This relatively new instructional methodology claims that flipping your classroom engages more effectively students with the learning process, achieving better teaching results. Thus, this research aimed to evaluate the effects of the flipped classroom on the students’ performance and perception of this new methodology. This study was conducted in a general science course, sophomore of the Primary Education bachelor degree in the Training Teaching School of the University of Extremadura (Spain) during the course 2014/2015. In order to assess the suitability of the proposed methodology, the class was divided in two groups. For the first group, a traditional methodology was followed, and it was used as control. On the other hand, the “flipped classroom” methodology was used in the second group, where the students were given diverse materials, such as video lessons and reading materials, before the class to be revised at home by them. Online questionnaires were as well provided to assess the progress of the students before the class. Finally, the results were compared in terms of students’ achievements and a post-task survey was also conducted to know the students’ perceptions. A statistically significant difference was found on all assessments with the flipped class students performing higher on average. In addition, most students had a favorable perception about the flipped classroom noting the ability to pause, rewind and review lectures, as well as increased individualized learning and increased teacher availability.


Inverted methodology General science teaching Pre-service teacher students Teaching methodology 



This work was founded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain (Research Project EDU2012-34140) and European Regional Development Fund (Project GR15009 of Govern of Extremadura).


  1. Beichner RJ, Saul JM (2003) Introduction to the SCALE-UP (Student-Centered activities for large enrolment undergraduate programs) project. Proceeding of the international school of physics “Enrico Fermi”, Varenna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann J, Sams A (2014) Flipped learning: maximizing face time. Train Dev 68:28–31Google Scholar
  3. Bishop JL, Verleger M (2013) The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. Paper presented at the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Antlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair E, Maharaj C, Primus S (2015) Performance and perception in the flipped classroom. Educ Inf Technol. doi: 10.1007/s10639-015-9393-5 Google Scholar
  5. Chen Y, Wang Y, Chen NS (2014) Is FLIP enough? or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Comput Educ 79:16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christiansen Michael A (2014) Inverted teaching: applying a new pedagogy to a university organic chemistry class. J Chem Educ 91(11):1845–1850. doi: 10.1021/ed400530z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies RS, Dean DL, Ball N (2013) Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educ Tech Res Dev 61(4):563–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferreri SP, O’Connor SK (2013) Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group learning course. Am J Pharm Educ 77(1):13. doi: 10.5688/ajpe77113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzgerald N, Li L (2015) Using presentation software to flip an undergraduate analytical chemistry course. J Chem Educ. doi: 10.1021/ed500667c Google Scholar
  10. Gilboy Mary Beth, Heinerichs Scott, Pazzaglia Gina (2015) Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. J Nutr Educ Behav 47(1):109–114. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, Bruns P, Chang A, DeHaan R, Gentile J, Lauffer S, Steart J, Tilghman SM, Wood WB (2004) Policy forum: scientific teaching. Science 304:521–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill JR, Song L, West RE (2009) Social learning theory and web-based learning environments: a review of research and discussion of implications. Am J Distance Educ 23(2):88–103. doi: 10.1080/08923640902857713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim MK, Kim SM, Khera O, Getman J (2014) The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: an exploration of design principles. Internet High Educ 22:37–50. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knight JK, Wood WB (2005) Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4:298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Love Betty, Hodge Angie, Grandgenett Neal, Swift Andrew W (2013) Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 45(3):317–324. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2013.822582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mason GS, Rutar TS, Cook KE (2013) Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. Educ IEEE Trans 56(4):430–435. doi: 10.1109/TE.2013.2249066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mattis KV (2014) Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: assessing accuracy and mental effort at different levels of mathematical complexity. Technol Knowl Learn. doi: 10.1007/s10758-014-9238-0 Google Scholar
  18. Moraros J, Islam A, Yu S, Banow R, Schindelka B (2015) Flipping for success: evaluating the effectiveness of a novel teaching approach in a graduate level setting. BMC Med Educ. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0317-2 Google Scholar
  19. O’Flaherty J, Phillips C (2015) The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. Internet High Educ 25:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roach T (2014) Student perceptions toward flipped learning: new methods to increase interaction and active learning in economics. Int Rev Econ Educ 17:74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.iree.2014.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sams A, Bergmann J (2013) Flip your students’ learning. Technol Rich Learn 70(6):16–20Google Scholar
  22. Silverberg Lee J, Tierney John, Bodek Matthew J (2014) Use of doceri software for iPad in online delivery of chemistry content. J Chem Educ 91(11):1999–2001. doi: 10.1021/ed4009057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sowa L, Thorsen D (2015) An assessment of student learning, perceptions and social capital development in undergraduate, lower-division STEM courses employing a flipped classroom pedagogy. Paper presented at the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  24. Tourón J, Santiago R (2015) Flipped learning model and the development of talent at school. Revista de Educ 368:33–65. doi: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-288 Google Scholar
  25. Tucker B (2012) The flipped classroom. Online instruction at home frees class for learning. Educ Next 12(1):82–83Google Scholar
  26. Tune JD, Sturek M, Basile DP (2013) Flipped classroom model improves graduate student performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 11(3):57–77Google Scholar
  27. Young JR (2002) “Hybrid’’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chron High Educ 48(28):A33–A34Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Training Teaching SchoolUniversity of ExtremaduraCáceresSpain
  2. 2.Department of Graphic ExpressionUniversity of ExtremaduraMéridaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Education SchoolUniversity of ExtremaduraBadajozSpain

Personalised recommendations