Students’ Perceptions of the Effect of Flipping Online Classes Using a Synchronous Interactive Online Tool

doi:10.4236/ce.2013.47A2015

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2013. Vol.4, No.7A2, 126-129

Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.47A2015

126

Students’ Perceptions of the Effect of Flipping Online Classes

Using a Synchronous Interactive Online Tool

Lin Carver, Carol Todd, Karen Hahn, Keya Mukherjee

Saint Leo University, School of Educa t ion & Social Services, Saint Leo, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received May 18th, 2013; revised June 18th, 2013; accepted June 24th, 2013

tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

Online instruction is a growing field, but there are concerns about lack of student engagement with mas-

tery of content. Researchers at a small, private, southern university were concerned about increasing stu-

dent engagement with online course content. A synchronous interactive online tool (SIOT) was added to

six sections of online graduate education courses. Data was collected and analyzed from the university

administered end of the course survey questions asking students to rate their course learning. Student sur-

vey responses were compared from courses without a SIOT, courses where a SIOT was used for office

hours, and courses where a SIOT was used for assignments. The differences in the question means from

end of the course survey without the SIOT and those where the SIOT was used for office hours were not

significant. However, when the SIOT was used to provide instruction related to student assignments, the

data from the question responses were significantly more positive. Students 1) became more confident; 2)

gained an excellent understanding of the concepts; 3) gained significant knowledge; 4) learned to analyze

and critically evaluate; and 5) learned to apply course concepts to solve problems. Consequently it be-

came evident that the implementation of the SIOT did not have a significant effect. The important com-

ponent that impacted students’ perception of their content understanding was the way in which the SIOT

was used within the online course.

Keywords: Online Learning; Elluminate; Adult Learning; Content Mastery; Student Engagement;

Graduate Education

Introduction

Online learning in the university environment is an ever ex-

panding field. After examining the online enrollment at 2500

universities, Allen and Seaman (2006) found that during the

2004 fall semester, 2.3 million students took online courses.

However, by 2008, that number had doubled to 4.6 million

(Allen & Seaman, 2010). Murray, Perez, Geist, and Hedrick

(2012) suggested there would be continued growth in online

learning. They predicted that by 2014 a majority of college

students would be taking at least some of their courses online.

Kester, Kirschner, and Corbalan (2006) found that the quality

of interaction is an important component in the learning envi-

ronment.

Adult learners identified ease of access and minimizing costs

associated with courses as major advantages of online instruc-

tion (Ward, Peters, & Shelley, 2010). Rising fuel prices and the

economic recession have probably increased these concerns.

However, adult learners also reported enjoying the convenience

and opportunities online learning affords. Although these adult

learners also expressed concerns about the quality of the in-

struction, learning, and interaction the online format provided

(Ward, Peters, & Shelley, 2010). Ward, Peters, and Shelley

(2010) found that incorporating a Synchronous Interactive

Online Instrument (SIOI) in an online course increased partici-

pant satisfaction with the online course.

Purpose and Description of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore how flipping the

typical online instruction to include opportunities for content

interactions through a Synchronous Interactive Online Tool

(SIOT), (adapted from the work of Ward, Peters, & Shelley,

2010), impacted students’ satisfaction with the online learning

environment. Elluminate, an online conferencing tool was the

SOIT used in the investigation by the researchers in this study.

A mixed-method approach, was used to examine student satis-

faction with graduate Educational Leadership, Exceptional

Student Education, Reading, and Instructional Design courses

from both the instructors’ and the students’ perspectives.

Theoretical Framework and

Review of Literature

The literature review focused on three important areas for

creating desirable learning environments: pedagogical orienta-

tion, the flipped classroom, and the role of immediacy and in-

teraction in the learning process.

Typically, presenting relevant, complete, and accurate con-

tent is the major concern when constructing online courses

(Murray et al., 2012). Murray et al.’s study examined the per-

ceptions of 100 students enrolled in online courses. The stu-

dents indicated they were not satisfied with online courses that

L. CARVER ET AL.

used “flat resources, in the form of static text documents” (p.

126). Beard and Harper (2002) also identified student concerns

based on the limited human interactions that are available in the

online environment. This might be an important concern with

graduate courses because they emphasize practitioner tasks that

require students to transfer skills and integrate content knowl-

edge into new situations. Particularly important to take into

con sider ation for graduate students, were Schwartzman’s (2007 )

findings that online learners often experience difficulty com-

prehending and applying information so just making the infor-

mation available does not necessarily result in a successful

educational course. Students need to know how to apply the

information in new situations.

Students’ perception of the characteristics of effective col-

lege instructors need also to be considered. Students viewed

instructors as effective when they provided opportunities for

multiple instructor and student interactions, they clearly and

accurately conveyed information, and they effectively used

time in the learning environment (Onweugbuzie et al., 2007).

Respondents indicated that they felt instructors were effective

when they were “student centered, expert, enthusiast, and ethi-

cal” (p. 151).

Goodwin and Miller (2013) examined preliminary data on

the effectiveness of flipping classroom instruction so that lec-

tures are recorded and posted online while instructional time is

used for “homework” assignments. These online lectures in-

cluded visual representations, graphics, videos, and photos

which could be accessed by the student when they chose to use

them, rather than spending instructional time on lecture materi-

als. The original version of the graduate online courses con-

tained lecture materials in a written format which were used as

a basis for the materials students needed to know to create the

homework assignments.

The researchers were interested in trying to flip the online

instruction so that students receive additional scaffolding for

the homework assignments. A Synchronous Interactive Online

Tool, Elluminate, was incorporated to address the research-

based principles for effective instruction that teachers were

attempting to incorporate into the flipped online classroom.

Sams and Bergmann (2013) indicated the importance of

teachers responding to students’ emotional and learning needs

as well addressing their individual learning styles. Beesley and

Apthrop (2010) found that feedback had a strong effect size

(0.73). The researchers wanted to determine if the addition of a

synchronous tool would provide opportunities for feedback and

correcting misperceptions. The researchers chose a synchro-

nous tool with recorded sessions to allow students to pace their

own learning to match their individual needs. According to

Hattie’s (2008) meta-analysis of 800 research studies, he found

that allowing students to pace their own learning had an effect

size of .88. In addition, providing students opportunities to

practice and apply skills with corrective teacher feedback was

four times more effective than homework assignments alone

(Beesley & Apthrop, 2010). Consequently the researchers de-

cided that the addition of a SIOI would address many of the

teaching and learning strategies.

Hirumi (2002) found that interactions that increased content

insights, provoked analysis, and deepened commitment result in

higher academic achievement and engagement. He found that

simply sharing personal observations; however, did not impact

achievement. Students’ performance and satisfaction increased

with more collaboration between students and between students

and instructors. Ho and Swan (2007) found that frequency,

manner, and quality of contributions online were positively

correlated to students’ grades. However, Wanstreet (2006)

found that research on online communication focused more on

the quantity of the interactions as opposed to the quality of the

interactions. So simply increasing the frequency of interactions

did not positively impact students’ achievement and engage-

ment.

Research Questions

This study was conducted to determine if the addition of a

SIOT would improve student and teacher satisfaction with

online courses. Two research questions guided the study.

1) How will the addition of a SOIT impact students’ percep-

tion of the effectiveness of their learning in an online course as

measured by change in end of course evaluations?

2) Will the way the SIOT is used within the online course

impact students’ perception of their learning?

Methodology

Over the past two years at a small, private, southern liberal

arts university, six graduate level courses taught by three dif-

ferent instructors were implemented in three ways: 1) totally

online with no synchronous component; 2) online using a SIOT

for office hours; and 3) online using a SIOT to provide practice

for completing homework assignments in addition to the online

component. At the completion of each course, the researchers

collected and analyzed data from university administered stu-

dent surveys. Student recorded their answer to the question

using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. One corresponded with

strongly disagree, while five corresponded to strongly agree.

The section data from the questions relating to student learning

in the six courses with the three different instructors were re-

corded and then the mean for each question was calculated.

Data from three instructors were included in an attempt to cor-

rect for variability between instructors. The mean score for each

question is recorded in Tables 1 and 2. A confidence interval of

95% was used to determine if the differences between the

means were significant.

Results

The seven components of Student Perceptions of Learning

section of the survey were analyzed using a paired t-test com-

paring the means of classes with no SIOT and classes where

SIOT was used for office hours in addition to the online com-

ponent. Results of the total student learning averages did not

reveal a significant difference (p = 0.173) between students’

perception of their learning in those classes where a SIOT was

not used (M = 3.920; SD = 0.27) and those classes where a

SIOT was used for office hours (M = 4.098; SD = 0.28). Al-

though the means for the questions were higher with the SIOT

being used for office hours, the difference between the means

did not exceed the 95% confidence interval. The question ask-

ing students to evaluate their confidence related to the course

content was the only question where the means were signifi-

cantly different enough to reject the null hypothesis.

Next the data was analyzed to determine if the use of the

SIOT to flip the class instruction was more effective than using

it for office hours. The seven components of Student Percep-

tions of Learning were analyzed using a paired t-test comparing

L. CARVER ET AL.

Table 1.

Student perception of learning without SIOT and using SIOT for office

hours.

Survey Question

No SIOT SIOT Office Hrs. p*

Participated in each learning activity

4.435 4.433 0.088

Became more conf i d en t

3.809 4.341 0.012

Gained an excellent understanding of concepts

3.642 3.808 0.452

Gained significant knowledge

3.770 4.037 0.198

Learned s omething valu able

4.207 4.058 0.541

Learned to analyze and critically evaluate

3.760 3.942 0.510

Learned t o apply course concepts to solve problems

3.812 4.066 0.234

Total Student Learning Average

3.920 4.098 0.173

Note: *p denotes probability.

Table 2.

Data on student perception of learning without SIOT and using SIOT

for assignments.

Survey Question

No SIOT SIOT Assign. p*

Participated in each learning activity

4.435 4.522 0.481

Became more conf i d en t

3.809 4.315 0.007

Gained an excellent understanding of concepts

3.642 4.243 0.005

Gained significant knowledge

3.770 4.253 0.028

Learned s omething valu able

4.207 4.335 0.655

Learned to analyze and critically evaluate

3.760 4.272 0.026

Learned t o apply course concepts to solve problems

3.812 4.356 0.001

Total Student Learning Average

3.920 4.319 0.007

Note: *p denotes probability.

the mean of classes with no SIOT and classes where the SIOT

was used for practice in completing homework assignments in

addition to the online component. Results of the total student

learning averages revealed a significant difference (p = 0.008)

between those classes where SIOT was not used (M = 3.920;

SD = 0.27) and those classes where SIOT was used for practice

in completing homework assignments (M = 4.319; SD = 0.31).

Student survey results from the individual questions related to

student confidence, understanding of concepts, and applying

concepts to solve problems were also significantly more posi-

tive with the use of the SIOT. The data from the survey ques-

tions related to student participation in all learning activities,

academic value of the course, content based critical thinking,

and knowledge growth did not reveal a statistically significant

difference.

Using 95% confidence interval six areas were found to be

significant. These included students 1) became for confident; 2)

gained an excellent understanding of the concepts; 3) gained

significant knowledge; 4) learned to analyze and critically

evaluate; and 5) learned to apply course concepts to solve

problems.

Discussion

The only question where there was significant difference

with both uses of the SIOT, either positive or negative, was

students’ response to their confidence with the course material.

Interestingly, the mean scores for this question revealed ap-

proximately a half point of positive growth. This might be be-

cause in both uses of the SIOT, the students were able to get

their specific issues clarified more easily. However, just the

addition of the SIOT alone did not seem to significantly impact

students’ perception of their learning.

However, when the SIOT was used to expand content

knowledge through practicing with assignments, the change in

the students’ perception of their learning was dramatic. Student

means demonstrated about half a point of growth in five out of

the seven categories. Data indicated significant differences in

students’ perception of gaining an excellent understanding of

the course concepts, learning to apply course concepts to solve

problems, and becoming more confident with the course con-

tent. Interestingly, the addition of the SIOT did not seem to

impact students’ perception of their participation in the course

activities or their perception of the value of what they learned

from the course. This might have been because these two cate-

gories were rated more highly in the initial surveys.

Conclusion

It is evident from the results of this study that the most im-

portant factor is how the SIOT is used within the course. Sim-

ply adding it to the course did not significantly impact students’

perceptions as can be seen by the results from using the SIOT

for office hours. When the SIOT was used to specifically sup-

port and expand content, students’ perception of their learning

increased. Often instructors are seen as a significant factor im-

pacting student learning. However, the data indicated that even

when the instructor variable was corrected, students’ perception

of their learning increased when the SIOT was used to add

content and support assignments, no matter what instructor was

teaching the course. Consequently, it would seem that students’

perceived the synchronous component had a positive impact on

128

L. CARVER ET AL.

their learning.

However, additional questions about the implementation of a

SIOT in an online course still remain. This study was limited to

graduate education students. It would be helpful to know if the

findings can be generalized to a larger population in a variety of

fields, such as business or medicine. A SIOT can be used in

many different types of ways within an online course. These

could include such activities as group work, videos, questions

and answers, and presentations. It would be helpful to know

which method of using students perceive is the most beneficial

in increasing their understanding of the course content. These

questions about the most effective use of the SIOT technology

still need to be addressed.

REFERENCES

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education

in the United States, 2009. Needham, MA: Sloan- C.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in

the United States, 2006. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Beard, L., & Harper, C. (2002). Student perceptions of online versus on

campus instruction. Education, 122, 658-663.

Beesley, A., & Apthorp, H. (2010). Classroom instruction that works

(2nd Ed). Denver, CO: McRel.

Goodman, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Evidence on flipped classrooms is

still coming in. Educational Leadership, 70, 78-80.

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-

analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.

Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of E-learning interac-

tions: A grounded approach. International Journal on E-learning, 1,

19-27.

Ho, C., & Swan, K. (2007). Evaluating online conversation in an asyn-

chronous learning environment: An application of Grice’s coopera-

tive principle. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 3-14.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.11.002

Kester, L., Kirschner, P., & Corbalan, G. (2006). Designing support of

facilitate learning in powerful electronic learning environments.

Computers in Human Behavior, 2 3 , 1047-1054.

Murray, M., Perez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student interac-

tion with online course content: Build it and they might come. Jour-

nal of Information Tech nol ogy Education, 11, 125-140.

Onweugbuzie, A., Witcher, A., Collins, K., Filer, J. Wiednaier, C., &

Moore, C. (2007). Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effec-

tive college teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form

using a mixed-method analysis. American Educational Research

Journal, 44, 113-160. doi:10.3102/0002831206298169

Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students’ learning. Educa-

tional Leadership, 7, 16-20.

Schwartzman, R. (2007). Electronifying oral communication: Refining

the conceptua l framewo rk for on line instruc tion. Colleg e Student Jou r-

nal, 41, 37-49.

Wanstreet, C. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments: A re-

view of the literature. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,

7, 399-411.

Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty per-

ceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. International

Review of Research in Open and Dista n ce L ea r ni n g , 11, 57- 77.