Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 1-8

  Gross, David ^a   Pietri, Evava S ^b   Anderson, Gordon ^c   Moyano Camihort, Karin ^a,e   Graham, Mark J ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Biologically Inspired Neural and Dynamical Systems Laboratory   (United States)

^d YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e Holyoke Community College   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICINE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; PROCEDURES; SEX DIFFERENCE; YOUNG ADULT;

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES; CURRICULUM; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; SEX FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84942104182     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.15-02-0040     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Baepler P, Walker JD, Driessen M (2014). It’s not about seat time: blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Comput Educ 78, 227–236.
2. Bahrick HP, Bahrick LE, Bahrick HS, Bahrick PE (1993). Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychol Sci 4, 316–321.
3. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personality Soc Psychol 51, 1173.
4. Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Schmid RF, Tamim RM, Abrami PC (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. J Comput High Educ 26, 87–122.
5. Bliuc AM, Goodyear P, Ellis RA (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet High Educ 10, 231–244.
6. Day JA, Foley JD (2006). Evaluating a Web lecture intervention in a human–computer interaction course. IEEE T Educ 49, 420–431.
7. Eddy SL, Hogan KA (2014). Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 453–468.
8. Estrada M, Woodcock A, Hernandez PR, Schultz P (2011). Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community. J Educ Psychol 103, 206–222.
9. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410–8415.
10. Graham MJ, Frederick J, Byars-Winston A, Hunter A-B, Handelsman J (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science 341, 1455–1456.
11. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332, 1213.
12. Halverson LR, Graham CR, Spring KJ, Drysdale JS, Henrie CR (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. Internet High Educ 20, 20–34.
13. Hart D, Woolf B, Day R, Botch B, Vining W (1999). OWL: an integrated Web-based learning environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Math/Science Education and Technology (M/SET 99), held in San Antonio, TX, March 1–4, 1999.
14. Hayes AF (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York: Guilford.
15. Herreid CF, Schiller NA (2012). Case studies and the flipped classroom. J Coll Sci Teach 42, 62–66.
16. Jensen JL, Kummer TA, Godoy PDdM (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE Life Sci Educ 14, ar5.
17. Michaelsen LK, Knight AB, Fink LD (2004). Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups, Sterling, VA: Stylus.
18. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 16474–16479.
19. Murphy MC, Steele CM, Gross JJ (2007). Signaling threat: how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychol Sci 18, 879–885.
20. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Office of Science and Technology.
21. Preszler RW, Dawe A, Shuster CB, Shuster M (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE Life Sci Educ 6, 29–41.
22. Son LK (2004). Spacing one’s study: evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. J Exp Psychol Learn 30, 601–604.
23. Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J Exp Soc Psychol 35, 4–28.
24. Stockwell BR, Stockwell MS, Cennamo M, Jiang E (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell 162, 933–936.