University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

(USC Thesis Other)

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARING 1

An Exploratory Study on Flipped Learning and the Use of Self-Regulation
Amongst Undergraduate Engineering Students

by

Daniel Yu

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Daniel Yu
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 2

Acknowledgements
Thank you Hannah for continuously supporting me throughout this journey. You are the
one that inspires me to take on new challenges. Without you, completing this challenge would
not have been possible.
Thank you mom and dad for showing me what it means to make sacrifices, and teaching
me the meaning of working hard. I will forever strive to make you both proud.
Thank you to my friends and family for always having a sympathetic ear, and listening to
my concerns over the past 4 years. You all always have my back, and I will always have yours.

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 3

Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Significance of the Study 13
Limitations and Delimitations 14
Definitions 15
Organization of the Study 16
Chapter Two: Literature Review 17
Description of Undergraduate Engineering and its Students 18
Demographic description 18
Why students choose engineering 18
Expectations of engineering students 18
Summary of description of undergraduate engineering students 20
Research on Undergraduate Engineering Student Success and Attrition 21
Factors related to academic success 22
Factors related to attrition in engineering education 23
Summary of undergraduate engineering success and attrition 25
The Freshman Experience 25
Academic experiences of freshmen 26
Non-academic experiences of freshmen 28
Summary of the freshman experience 30
Online Learning 32
Development of online learning 32
Blended learning 33
Summary of online learning 34
The Flipped Classroom 34
Best practices for the flipped classroom 36
Intentional content development 37
Engagement 37
Community building 37
Flexible setting 38
Formative assessments 38
Technological planning 38
General studies of the flipped classroom 39
Academic effect 39
Student perceptions of the flipped classroom 40
Teacher perceptions of the flipped classroom 42
Additional studies on flipped learning 43
Perceptions of flipped learning in engineering education 45
Studies on learning and achievement in engineering education 46
Summary of the flipped classroom 48
Self-Regulated Learning 50
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 4

Models of self-regulated learning 51
Assumptions of self-regulated learning 52
The Importance of self-regulated learning in flipped classrooms 53
Summary of self-regulation 54
Related Research on Self-Regulated Learning 54
Self-regulated learning processes in internet-based classes 55
Enhancing self-regulation in internet-based classes 56
Summary of related research on self-regulation 57
Social Cognitive Theory 58
Summary of social cognitive theory 60
Zimmerman’s Framework of Self-Regulated Learning 61
Forethought phase 62
Task analysis 62
Self-motivation beliefs 63
Performance phase 64
Self-control 64
Self-observation 64
Self-reflection phase 65
Self-judgment 65
Self-reaction 67
Environmental influences on self-regulation 68
Development of self-regulated learning 68
Summary of Zimmerman’s self-regulation model 69
Chapter Two Summary 70
Chapter Three: Methodology 74
Sample and Population 74
Instrumentation 75
Data Collection 77
Profile of participants in the study 78
Observational data collection 79
Privacy and protection of participants of the study 80
Data Analysis 80
Chapter Three Summary 81
Chapter Four: Results 83
Participants 83
Forethought Phase – Use of Task Analysis and Self-Motivation 85
Performance Phase – Use of Self-Control and Self-Observation 88
Self-Reflection Phase – Self-Judgment and Self-Reaction 90
Environmental Structuring 91
Social Support 93
Additional Emerging Themes 94
Self-regulation versus the traditional classroom 94
Rigor of the course and its impact on self-regulation 97
Student perceptions of the flipped classroom 98
Deviation from the Flipped Classroom Pedagogy 99
Chapter Four Summary 100
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 5

Chapter Five: Discussion 102
Discussion of Findings 102
Limitations 104
Implications for Practice 106
Future Research 108
Conclusion 109
References 112
Appendix A: A Research Study Flier 126
Appendix B: Interview Protocol Form 127
Appendix C: Observational Protocol 130
Appendix D: Information/Fact Sheet for Non-Medical Research 131
Appendix E: Tables of Primary Findings 133

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Forethought Phase Findings 85
Table 2: Performance Phase Findings 88
Table 3: Self-Reflection Phase Findings 90
Table 4: Environmental Structuring Findings 91
Table 5: Social Support Findings 93

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 7

Abstract
The current study on the flipped classroom approach used Zimmerman’s (2001) self-regulation
model and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) to understand how students utilized self-
regulation processes while participating in a freshman-level engineering course that utilized the
flipped classroom approach. The research question for the study was: "What self-regulating
learning processes do engineering students enrolled in an undergraduate flipped course utilize
while learning?" To answer the research question, a qualitative study was completed. Data was
collected from seven interviews of students taking the same engineering course. Observational
data was also collected from the same engineering course in which the informants of the study
were enrolled. Using Merriam’s (2009) qualitative coding procedures, the study found that the
most prevalent self-regulated learning processes students used were: self-motivation, attention-
focusing, environmental structuring and social support. The study also found that students’ self-
regulation processes did not differ when compared with their self-regulation in their traditional
classes. Students also expressed that while participating in the study they did not utilize certain
aspects of self-regulation, due to the simplicity of the flipped course they were enrolled in.
Furthermore, the study found that students participating in the course had mixed perceptions
towards the flipped classroom. Some students cited the benefits of having opportunities for both
lecture and student-centered activities, while some stated that the recorded content of the flipped
classroom was a barrier to their learning. Lastly, an additional finding of the study was that the
flipped classroom under observation deviated from some of the best practices associated with
flipped pedagogy. Although the findings support the breadth of knowledge related to the flipped
classroom literature, due to the limitations of the study, researchers must further explore self-
regulation and its relationship to the flipped classroom.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 8

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Flipped learning is a relatively new mode of instruction that is increasingly being utilized
by higher education (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Roach 2014). One reason why this relatively new
method of instruction has gained popularity is because of its emphasis on student-centered
learning (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Roach, 2014). If utilized appropriately, the benefit of the
flipped classroom is that students have the opportunity to develop higher levels of knowledge.
With flipped learning, students can learn under the supervision of their instructors, rather than
having to apply concepts and skills on their own after observing in-class lectures (Roach, 2014).
The perceived benefits of the flipped classroom, and its increasing popularity, have caused
researchers to re-examine the pedagogical approach. This study seeks to add to the current
research related to flipped learning by examining the self-regulated learning processes of
engineering students enrolled in a flipped classroom. The following sections will contextualize
this study, introduce the problem statement and purpose of the study, and will close with
interpreting the significance of the study and its limitations.
Background of the Problem
In a field such as engineering, there is a vast amount of knowledge that instructors are
expected to cover for each course that is being taught (Toto & Nguyen, 2009). In a relatively
short period of time, instructors are expected to cover a large body of foundational knowledge
that students must acquire, while also developing students’ abilities to engage in deeper and
higher levels of thought through applied learning experiences (Toto & Nguyen, 2009).
Traditionally, instructors have accomplished this task by utilizing teacher-centered instructional
methods. This has been done, almost exclusively by giving lectures during class meetings that
cover the basic principles that students must understand (Mason, Shuman & Cook, 2013).
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 9

Afterwards, instructors have then had students apply and deepen their knowledge through
various applied assignments, often given as homework (Mason, Shuman & Cook, 2013). The
problem with the traditional teacher-centered approach, according to Mason, Shuman and Cook
(2013), is that many engineering stakeholders believe that this approach is an outdated method of
instruction. The teacher-centered approach, according to Mason et al., views students as passive
learners, and thus does a poor job of developing higher levels of thought while students are in the
classroom, a trait that is highly valued by the engineering jobs market. Although instructors
understand the need and value of a more student-centered approach towards learning, instructors
state that the difficulty of having a more student-centered approach is because of the limited
timeframe available, given the breadth of information that must be covered (Toto & Nguyen,
2013). This problem has led institutions to develop new approaches towards educating
engineering students (Mason et al., 2013).
As a solution to the problem, some institutions have started to change their pedagogical
approach towards their engineering courses by utilizing the flipped classroom model. The model
is an instructional method in which students asynchronously view video recorded lectures by
internet prior to attending class. During class, students then participate in student-centered
activities such as: discussions, problem-based activities and collaborative learning experiences
(Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Mason, Shuman & Cook, 2013). Thus, instructors are viewed as
facilitators of learning in the classroom who guide students towards higher levels of knowledge
development (Roach, 2014). Students are then seen as more active agents in the learning process
while in the classroom (Bishop & Berleger, 2013). The benefit of applying the flipped
classroom model is that instructors are then capable of covering the necessary foundational
content that students need, while also being able to have students apply and deepen their
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 10

knowledge during class time, without compromising the content that must be covered through
lecture (Toto & Nguyen, 2009). Stakeholders view this approach as being highly beneficial
because the method allows for instructors to provide better feedback to students while they are
learning (Roach, 2014). Furthermore, proponents of the flipped classroom view the method as
being more aligned with the goals of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology
(ABET), which expects engineering students to: communicate effectively, identify, formulate
and solve engineering problems, be able to function within collaborative teams, and possess
lifelong learning characteristics (Bishop & Verleger, 2013).
Statement of the Problem
Stakeholders of engineering education have viewed the flipped classroom as an area of
potential application and benefit to classrooms for multiple reasons (Bishop & Verleger, 2013).
They view the flipped classroom positively because it allows instructors to continue to utilize
lectures, which can support the development of students’ foundational knowledge, while also
utilizing a student-centered approach towards learning (Toto & Nguyen, 2009). Additionally,
stakeholders in engineering view the method positively because of the promising findings
associated with the instructional method. One major area of research that has been frequently
examined in engineering education is students’ perceptions towards the flipped classroom
(Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Although the research suggests that reactions are mixed towards
some aspects of the teaching method, Bishop and Verleger (2013) note that the flipped classroom
is generally perceived positively. Researchers have found that students who view the flipped
classroom positively like the fact that they can apply what they have learned while in class, and
also be able to review the recorded lectures as needed to clarify topics (Shuman & Cook, 2013;
Toto & Nguyen, 2009; Day & Foley, 2006).
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 11

The flipped classroom has also been viewed positively because of the impact that it can
have on student learning (Day & Foley, 2006; Redekopp & Ragusa, 2013). Although research
on the impact of flipped classrooms and achievement is an area that has been studied less by
researchers (Bishop & Verleger, 2013), in a comparison of students performances, Day and
Foley (2006) found that students enrolled in a flipped senior-level computer interaction course
performed significantly better on all types of assignments (i.e. homework, projects, and tests)
than students who did not participate in the flipped classroom. Additionally, Redekopp and
Ragusa’s (2013) study found that students participating in a flipped engineering course
performed significantly better on assessment questions that required higher levels of thought to
answer. Overall, the general findings of the flipped classroom’s impact on achievement has
indicated that it does not hurt student learning, when compared to traditional classes, and has the
potential to improve student learning (Mason, Shuman & Cook, 2013).
As described by Bishop and Verleger (2013), much of the research conducted on flipped
learning, specifically in engineering education, has focused on the perceptions held by students
and the flipped classroom’s effect on student achievement (Day & Foley 2006; Redekopp &
Ragusa, 2013). As a relatively recent instructional method, research primarily focusing on
student perceptions is not surprising, since one could logically infer that if students do not
perceive a specific learning strategy to be positive, then they may be less likely to participate in
such a learning environment. Furthermore, the study of perceptions is important because
positive perceptions towards learning experiences have been correlated to higher levels of
student achievement (Deperlioglu & Kose, 2013). In regards to understanding the effects of the
flipped classroom on student achievement outcomes, it is imperative to understand and evaluate,
since one could logically assume that educational institutions want to ensure that their
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 12

instructional methods are effective, and are not negatively impacting student learning.
Otherwise, students may be ill-equipped for their future academic and/or career endeavors.
Furthermore, an institution may lose its credibility if it is using poor instructional methods.
Although research in both areas is clearly necessary, there are other areas of research related to
flipped learning and engineering education that must be further explored (Bishop & Vereleger,
2013).
In relation to the field of engineering education, one research area of importance is the
idea of self-regulated learning processes that students engage in while participating in flipped
engineering courses. Understanding self-regulated learning processes in engineering students is
significant because the flipped classroom is a relatively new model of instruction and because
self-regulated learning processes are seen by key educational theorists (e.g. Zimmerman 2000;
Pintrich,1999) as important aspects towards the development of life-long learning, which is a
characteristic that is highly valued within the field of engineering (Bernold, Spurlin & Anson,
2007). Additionally, self-regulated learning is important to study because it is essentially one of
the characteristics that the flipped classroom attempts to foster in students, due to the amount of
control that students have while learning (Barnard, Lan, To, Paton & Lai, 2008).
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to conduct exploratory research that examines the self-
regulated learning processes that engineering students apply when participating in a flipped
classroom. This study qualitatively examined the kinds of self-regulated learning processes
students applied within the context of the flipped classroom. In doing so, the study was guided
by the following research question: "What self-regulating learning processes do engineering
students enrolled in an undergraduate flipped course utilize while learning?"
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 13

In order to answer the study’s research question, data for this study was obtained through
two observations that lasted 50 minutes each, and seven semi-structured interviews. All
observational and interview data was collected from a single undergraduate engineering course
that had an enrollment of 27 students. Participants of the study were attending a private research
university located in the western region of the United States. To gain insight into the research
question, the guiding theory was Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1991). The
framework that was utilized to aid the data collection process was Zimmerman’s (2000)
framework on self-regulated learning; specifically, the self-regulated learning processes of the
forethought phase (task-analysis and motivation), the performance phase (self-control and self-
observation) and the self-reflection phase (self-judgment and self-reaction). In addition, because
Zimmerman’s model is founded upon social cognitive theory, how students shaped their
environment and utilized social support was also examined as part of the study.
Significance of the Study
As a greater number of educational institutions begin to incorporate the flipped classroom
into their course options for students, it is important to add to the diversity of the research
literature by extending research beyond the perceptions that students hold towards the learning
format (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). At the basic level, the significance of this study was to
follow Bishop and Verleger’s (2013) research calling for greater diversity in the research related
to flipped learning. At a deeper level, however, the significance of this study was to examine
self-regulation so that stakeholders can have a better sense of how students are learning in the
flipped classroom. This could possibly lead to institutions being better able to develop and utilize
the flipped classroom, especially given the greater levels of autonomy that students have in
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 14

courses that include a mandatory online component (Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, Lai, 2008; Lee &
Tsai, 2011).
Limitations and Delimitations
As with any research study, there are certain aspects that will impact its credibility
(limitations), and its transferability (delimitations). For qualitative studies, Maxwell (2013)
describes one key threat to credibility that was present in this study: the researcher. The
researcher in qualitative studies is the instrument through which all data is gathered and
processed to make inductive conclusions. As the instrument of data collection and processing,
the researcher was a threat to any qualitative study because he brought his own past experiences,
which continuously biased the information that was gathered; thus it was impossible to have full
objectivity when conducting the qualitative research. A second limitation to the study was the
possible impact that the researcher had on his participants when conducting interviews and
observations. This limitation is known as reactivity or reflexivity (Maxwell, 2013). A third
limitation in the study was the protocols used to complete the data collection process. Although
thoughtful development of the protocols occurred, alternative protocols may have been stronger
and collected deeper and richer accounts of students’ experiences within the flipped course they
were participating in. A fourth limitation was that data was primarily collected from self-reports
from student interviews. Unfortunately, self-reports have been found to be unreliable at times
(Winters, Greene & Costich 2008). Lastly, a limitation to the current study was the fact that the
flipped course being examined was utilizing the flipped classroom model approximately 50% of
the time.
The primary delimitation, or threat to transferability, was the small sample size that was
utilized to gather data to develop conclusions. A small sample size is problematic to any study
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 15

because the population many not be representative of the broader population and possibly only
represents the thoughts and behaviors of a small segment of a larger population. Thus, there is
difficulty in making generalizations derived from the data collected in this study, and therefore
what is found in this study may not be apparent in other studies and/or in different settings. An
additional delimitation to this study was the fact that all of the data collected in this study was
from one college institution, which, like the issue of having a small sample size, may have
impacted the kind of data that was obtained and the generalizability of the data found.
Definitions
Blended Learning (hybrid learning): The combination of face-to-face learning and
online learning in which 30-79% of the instruction occurs online (Allen & Seaman, 2010).
Flipped Classroom (or Flipped Course, Flipped Class, and Inverted Classroom): In this
model, students view video recorded lectures asynchronously when they are not attending class.
While in class, students participate in knowledge application activities, problem-based
assignments, discussions and collaborative learning (Gannod, et al., 2008).
Online Learning: Most or all of the instructional content of a course is taught online
(Allen & Seaman, 2010,).
Self-regulated learning: A self-directed process that students use in order to develop
academic skills through the use of their mental abilities (Zimmerman, 2002)
Student-centered learning: Students are the focal point of the classroom; rather than
having teachers impart knowledge onto students, students engage in active learning experiences
(Toto & Nguyen, 2009)
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 16

Teacher-Centered (Traditional Classroom): The instructor is the focal point of a class
and he or she imparts knowledge to students by delivering information through lectures (Gannod,
et al., 2008)
Organization of the Study
This study will be organized into five chapters. Chapter One of this study introduced the
context of the study and the overall outline of the study. Furthermore, Chapter One examined
the background literature, the problem statement, the purpose of the study, the study’s
significance, the limitations and delimitations of the study, and finally the definitions of the
terms that will be used in this study. Chapter Two provides a literature review of topics that are
relevant to the study. The topics covered are: a description of the population being studied, the
development of flipped learning, literature related to this study’s research question, Bandura’s
(1991) social cognitive theory, and Zimmerman’s (2000) framework of self-regulated learning.
Chapter Three provides a detailed description of the methodology and research design that was
utilized to complete the study. Chapter Four examines the results of the study. Lastly, Chapter
Five discusses the significance and implications of the study, while identifying the limitations of
the study, and making future recommendations for researchers.

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 17

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The current chapter provides a literature review of the topics that are closely tied with the
study. The chapter begins with a review of the undergraduate engineering population, and then
examines the freshman experience, which was the primary group of students interviewed in the
study. The chapter then progresses by examining the history of online learning and its
contribution to flipped learning. Research related to flipped learning is then examined, followed
by studies that have examined self-regulation. The chapter closes with a review of Social
Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) and the self-regulation framework developed by Zimmerman
(2001).
Description of Undergraduate Engineering Education and Its Students
The population of this study will be students enrolled in a flipped undergraduate
engineering course. Thus, to provide readers with some basic characteristics of engineering
students, a discussion on general findings from researchers will be reviewed. Specifically, this
section will review some general demographic characteristics of engineering programs, an
explanation of why students choose to pursue engineering degrees, and it will close with the a
brief discussion on the importance of self-regulated learning as it relates to engineering students.
Demographic Description
Studies examining the population of undergraduate engineering students in the United
States have found that most engineering students are male (81.6%) (Chen & Wako, 2009; Yoder,
2011) and belong to the majority racial group (66.6% White) (Yoder, 2011). Researchers have
found that the disparity between males and females exists due to a number of factors. The
societal gender expectations of females, the demands of the engineering field (which many
females do not find beneficial), and a lack of self-perceived self-efficacy have been cited by
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 18

researchers as reasons why females choose not to pursue or complete engineering degrees
(Hutchinson, Follman, Sumpter, & Bodner, 2006; Litzler & Young, 2012; Meyers, Sillman, &
Gedde, 2010). In addition to gender expectations and poor perceptions of the work field,
researchers have also found that females do not feel welcome in engineering programs because
of the male dominated culture (Ong, Write, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011). In relation to explaining
the divide in minority students participating in engineering programs, studies have found that
many minority students, particularly Latino and African-American students, do not enter
engineering programs because they lack educational access and/or academic preparation relative
to their peers who belong in the majority group (Crisp, Nora, & Taggart, 2009; Tyson, Lee,
Borman, & Hansen, 2007).
Why Students Choose Engineering
In describing why students choose to pursue an undergraduate degree in engineering,
researchers have found that many students pursue engineering because of their aptitude in
science and math related subjects. In a survey conducted by Honken and Ralstan (2013), 88% of
296 first year freshman students enrolled at an Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) accredited school stated that they chose to pursue a degree in the field of
engineering because of their strength in math and science. In the same study, Honken and
Ralstan found that the reason students also chose to pursue degrees in engineering was because
of the positive job prospects in the engineering field and because of the type of work in which
engineers are involved.
Expectations of Engineering Students
Today, students within the engineering field are expected to possess significantly
different qualities after earning their degrees and entering the job market, compared to students
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 19

of earlier decades (Shuman, Besterfield-Sacre, & McGourty, 2005; Litzinger, Wise, & Lee,
2005). Previous generations of students in engineering programs were primarily expected to
develop the intellectual capacity to solve new and difficult engineering problems (Shuman, et al.,
2005). Hence, the expectation of engineering students, and engineering schools, was to develop
the intellect of students that was deeply rooted in the knowledge and understanding of the basic
sciences (e.g. math, physics and chemistry) and engineering sciences (Shuman, et al., 2005).
Since the 1990’s, however, there has been a push away from simply expecting and preparing
students to possess deep understandings of knowledge related to the practice of engineering
(Shuman, et al., 2005). Since the development of a more globalized society, increasingly mobile
workforce, and the prevalence of instructional technology, students and engineering programs
are now expected to possess not only the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in the
workforce, but they are also expected to develop a set of professional skills that will allow
students to thrive as engineers in the current society (Shuman, et al., 2005; Litzinger, et al.,
2005). Engineering students, and programs, are now expected to develop skills such as the
ability to effectively communicate both orally and in writing, function within multidisciplinary
teams, possess an awareness of engineering issues at the global level and engage in lifelong
learning (Shuman, et al., 2005; Litzinger, et al., 2005). Of the preceding skills, lifelong learning
is viewed as an imperative characteristic of engineering students, not only because of the ever
changing technology that engineers will have to be accustomed to, but also because of the career
trajectories that future engineers will choose (Talbert, 2014). These factors often result in
engineers being placed in front of new and unfamiliar challenges. In relation to this study,
understanding and having the ability to engage in lifelong learning will be of significance, since
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 20

a major characteristic of lifelong learning is self-regulated learning, which is one of the main
constructs being examined in current study.
Summary of Description of Undergraduate Engineering and Its Students
In the United States, the demographic makeup of the engineering population can be
described as being proportionally non-representative of overall society. The student engineering
population is comprised predominately of male students belonging to the majority racial group
(Chen & Wako, 2009; Yoder, 2011). Some of the reasons why such a disparity exists between
men and women is because of societal gender expectations, perceived low self-efficacy held by
women, and because of the perceived less than desirable work requirements of engineers
(Hutchinson, Follman, Sumpter, & Bodner, 2006; Litzler & Young, 2012; Meyers, Sillman, &
Gedde, 2010). Additionally, racial gaps exist in engineering programs because many minority
students lack the educational access and/or academic preparation to participate in engineering
programs (Crisp, Nora, & Taggart, 2009; Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hansen, 2007).
Many students decide to become engineers because of their self-perceived aptitude in
math and science (Honken & Ralstan, 2013). Additionally, students commonly choose to
become engineers because of the positive job prospects for engineers and because of the type of
work engineers participate in (Honken & Ralstan, 2013).
The expectations of current and future engineers are much more broad than in the past.
Engineers today are expected not only to have the knowledge to take on challenging tasks, they
are also required to possess a variety of “soft skills” such as: the ability to effectively
communicate, work within teams and possess lifelong learning skills (Litzinger et al., 2005;
Shuman et al., 2005; Talbert 2014). The predominant reasons why engineers are required to
possess a greater number of skills is because of the changing technological world and because of
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 21

the globalized economy, which can result in engineers being placed in new and challenging
scenarios that require them to continuously expand their knowledge (Talbert, 2014). This study
places an emphasis on examining engineering students’ lifelong learning skills by studying
students' utilization of self-regulated learning behaviors, which are commonly understood by
researchers as a key to lifelong learning (Zimmerman, 2000; Pintrich, 1999). The following
section will examine online learning as it relates to understanding what the flipped classroom is.
Research on Undergraduate Engineering Student Success And Attrition
Within the field of undergraduate engineering studies, the issues of success and retention
have been areas of concern (Marra et al., 2012). One of the primary reasons has been due to the
fact that the demand for engineers in the job market outweighs the number of students graduating
and entering the job market (Marra et al., 2012; Marra, Rodgers, Shen, & Bogue, 2012). In the
current section, research related to the success and attrition of engineering students will be
examined. The purpose of reviewing these areas is to provide further insight into the
understanding of the undergraduate engineering population.
Factors Related to Academic Success
In relation to academic success within the engineering education field, researchers have
found various factors that contribute to success (Seabi, 2011). In the study completed by Seabi
(2011), the researcher found that students’ self-esteem, learning strategies and score on an
intellectual ability assessment were significantly predictive of academic achievement. In order
for Seabi to arrive at his findings, the researcher sampled 111 freshmen engineering students.
They all completed the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory, Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Inventory, Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices and Organization and Academic
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 22

Achievement measure. Additionally, the Seabi study compared students’ responses on the
previously measured instruments to students’ final exam scores.
In addition to the findings by Seabi (2011), researchers have also found that collaborative
learning in engineering education can improve student achievement (Stump, Hilpert, Husman,
Chung & Kim, 2011). In order to arrive at these findings, Stump et al. (2011) surveyed 150
mechanical and aerospace engineering students, using the Student Perceptions of Classroom
Knowledge-building measure and also the Motivated Strategies for learning Questionnaire, while
also collecting students’ course grades. Ultimately, the researchers found that collaborative
learning was a significant predictor of course grade, even above students’ self-efficacy. The
importance of the study completed by Stump et al. is that the current study examined the flipped
classroom, which emphasizes collaborative learning, which further emphasizes the importance of
the pedagogical approach in engineering education.
In addition to the study completed by Seabi (2011), Stump, Hilpert, Husman, Chung, and
Kim (2011) have identified factors such as self-esteem, learning strategies, and collaborative
learning as predictors of success while students are enrolled in engineering programs, other
studies have also identified pre-college factors that can impact success (French, Immekus, &
Oakes, 2005). In the study completed by French, Immekus and Oakes (2005), the researchers
found that students’ SAT scores and high school ranking are significant predictors of student
success in engineering education, as measured by students’ grade-point averages. In order for
French et al. to arrive at their conclusion, the researchers examined two cohorts and collected
data on students’ SAT scores and high school ranking. Afterwards the researchers completed a
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 23

regression analysis to examine the impact that SAT scores and high school rankings had on
students’ success in their undergraduate engineering coursework.
Factors Related to Attrition in Engineering Education
In seeking an explanation as to why students leave engineering programs without
successfully earning their degree, researchers have found a diverse set of explanations (Geisinger
& Raman, 2013). Geisinger and Raman’s (2013) meta-analysis of 50 peer-reviewed studies
related to engineering and retention found that students primarily leave engineering programs
because of the following reasons: a) classroom and academic climate, b) grades and conceptual
understanding, c) self-efficacy and self-confidence, d) interest and career goals and e) because of
issues revolving around race and gender.
In relation to classroom and academic climate, Geisinger and Raman’s (2013) meta-
analysis found that students often left engineering programs because they perceived a lack of
faculty guidance and academic support. Geisinger and Raman’s finding is supported by the
study completed by Marra, Rodgers, Shen, and Bogue (2007). After completing a multi-year
factor analysis study, surveying 113 students at a large eastern U.S. college, Marra et al. found
that 35.61% of students left engineering because instructors provided poor instruction and
guidance. Additionally, the study completed by Marra et al. found that another primary factor
impacting students to leave the engineering field was a limited sense of belonging. By
connecting the findings of Marra et al. and Geisinger and Raman’s meta-analysis to the current
study, the findings may provide some clues in explaining the self-regulation processes that the
sample of students utilized, with specific emphasis on students seeking social support to assist
their learning.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 24

Half of the 50 studies reviewed in Geisinger and Raman’s (2013) meta-analysis found
that engineering students left their programs because of their grades and the conceptual
difficulties associated with the course content. However, the literature reviewed does not
examine whether the difficulty associated with courses reflected students’ prior abilities, or
whether students’ difficulties were a result of instructors’ abilities to make content accessible to
students (Geisinger & Ramen, 2013).
In relation to self-efficacy as a relevant factor for students leaving engineering programs,
Geisinger and Ramen (2013) found that 15 out of the 50 studies reviewed indicated that students
left the programs due to low self-efficacy. The finding is not surprising, given that self-efficacy
is a major factor in students completing a given task (Seabi, 2011).
As with any academic major, Geisinger and Ramen (2013) found that a change in
students’ interests and career goals were also a reason for the problem of retention in engineering
programs. Studies point to the fact that once students participate in engineering education
programs, they often find more appealing career options beyond engineering (Geisinger &
Ramen, 2013). Additionally, Geisinger and Ramen found that students may not find the
perceived demanding and solitary lifestyle of engineers to be appealing, and thus leave.
Another contributing factor to the problem of retention rates is race and/or gender
(Geisinger & Ramen, 2013). Studies have found that women are more likely to leave
engineering programs because of sexist treatment. For instance, males may perceive women as
intellectually inferior, causing a negative academic culture/climate. Also, studies have found
that women oftentimes do not have female mentors and/or role models in engineering programs,
which may negatively impact women while in engineering programs, influencing them to leave
(Geisinger & Ramne, 2013).
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 25

Summary of Undergraduate Engineering Success And Attrition
Given the societal need for engineers, researchers have examined both the predictors of
success and barriers towards achievement in engineering education. In relation to student
success, researchers have found that self-esteem, learning strategies, collaborative learning
environments, and preparedness can predict whether or not students will succeed as engineering
students (Seabi, 2011; French, Immekus, & Oakes, 2005; Stump, Hilpert, Husman, Chung, &
Kim, 2011). Researchers have also identified various barriers that cause students to leave
engineering programs. In the meta-analysis completed by Geisinger and Ramen (2013), the
researchers found that students leave programs because of problems related to: classroom and
academic climate, grades and conceptual understanding, self-efficacy and self-confidence,
interest and career goals and because of issues revolving around race and gender. Given the
societal need for engineers, stakeholders must work on emphasizing the factors that contribute to
the success of engineering students, while also developing solutions to mitigate the variables that
impact attrition.
The Freshman Experience
Given that the data for the current study focuses on a freshman level flipped course, and
that most of the informants are freshmen, an overview of the research related to the varying
experiences that freshman students have will be discussed. Since student experiences can be
vastly different, factors that relate to students’ academic and non-academic experiences will be
reviewed, in order to capture the breadth of research that exists related to the freshman
experience (Malinga-Musamba, 2014; Clark, 2005).

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 26

Academic Experiences of Freshmen
Academically, the first year of college can be filled with many stressors (Malinga-
Musamba, 2014). From the start, students must decide upon a major and adjust to challenging
professors and courses, while also attempting to excel on examinations and assignments
(Malinga-Musamba, 2014). Given the range of areas that freshman students must focus on,
various studies have examined the obstacles that impact student success during their first year of
college.
A primary academic challenge that Turner and Thompson (2014) found in their
qualitative study was that freshman students often struggled because they possessed ineffective
study skills. Out of the 30 students participating in Turner and Thompson’s study, 19 supported
the finding. Students struggled with their studies because they did not have a systemic approach
towards studying (keeping up with their assignments and preparing for assessments). The
findings are supported by Aquino’s (2011) study, which found that a primary barrier to students’
academic success was their poor study habits, which were caused by poor time management and
poor work methods. The aforementioned studies are further supported by Schrader (2008),
which notes that freshman students often struggle because they have difficulty managing their
time while allocating the appropriate resources to complete their assignments. The literature has
shown that prior to entering college, about three-fifths of students plan to study 15 or more hours
per week, but only two-fifths actually did so (Kuh, 2007).
Related to the previous barrier to success that freshmen encounter as they transition to
college, researchers have also studied how students self-regulate their learning, given that they
are in an environment where they have greater freedom, more rigorous academic expectations,
and are often left without the supports they once had prior to entering college (Thompson, 2008).
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 27

Utilizing a diary-interview method, Thompson (2008) found that when freshman students
struggled they preferred to seek out face-to-face social support, since that mode allowed for
better communication between students who were also more encouraging. Computer-mediated
communication was less preferred, however that method of support made students more
accessible to one another, and also built a greater sense of community since students could
collaborate with a larger group of peers (Thompson, 2008).
A third variable that freshman encounter when transitioning to college is the experience
of being academically under-prepared (Michael, Dickson, Ryan, & Koefer, 2010). As students
enter college, research shows that students are often not proficient in being able to write and
comprehend texts at the college level, and lack college level mathematical skills (Michael, et al.,
2010). Due to the under-preparedness of students, some states in the U.S. have reported that the
average student spends $1,300 on remedial classes (Commonweatlh of PA, 2009). The
significance of being academically under-prepared is that the self-efficacy of students may be
negatively impacted, given that they may not be academically ready for the coursework they
engage in. In the study completed by Wright, Jenkins-Guarnieri, and Murdock (2012), the
researchers found that freshman students’ self-efficacy was associated with the likelihood of
students returning for the second semester of college, while also finding that self-efficacy was
related to academic success. To arrive at their findings, Wright et al. sampled 401 freshman, at a
college located in the midwest, while using regression analysis.
Understanding that the academic transition of freshmen is a difficult time period,
institutions have developed strategic supports for freshman (Turner & Thompson, 2014). Some
institutions have attempted to foster support by providing academic advisors to students (Roberts
& Stryron, 2009). The benefit of such a program is that students can purposefully plan out their
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 28

academic and career trajectories according to their educational and career goals (Roberts &
Styron, 2009). Other institutions have developed freshman seminar courses, which help
freshman develop a broad range of academic and social skills. For instance, colleges in
Pennsylvania have adopted the Act 101 program, which targets the development of freshmen
students’ study skills and overall writing and math skills, while also developing short and long-
term goals for students (Michael, Dickson, Ryan, & Koefer, 2010). The benefit of the transition
programs is that they have had positive impacts on both retention and academic success
(Walpole, Simmerman, Mack, Mills, Scales, & Albano, 2009; Michael et al., 2010).
Non-Academic Experiences of Freshmen
Freshmen do not only encounter an academic transition during their first year (Pillay &
Ngcobo, 2010; Malinga-Musamba, 2014). First-year students must also adjust to a new social
setting. A positive social transition into college is key, given that it positions students to develop
their social connectedness and feelings of belonging to their college and the groups they identify
with (Turner & Thompson, 2014). The significance of having a positive social experience is that
researchers have found that feelings of belonging are the greatest enabler of students returning
to school after their freshman year (Turner & Thompson, 2014). Conversely, researchers have
noted that students who do not have a positive social experience tend to feel a greater sense of
loneliness, lower self-confidence, and greater social distress, which naturally resulted from the
difficulty of adjusting to college (Malinga-Musamba, 2014). To promote the social adjustment
of freshmen, researchers have found that students who engage in proactive social behaviors
(seeking feedback, general socializing, and instructor relationship building) experienced
improved learning and greater participation in student activities (Wang, Cullen, Yao. & Li, 2013)
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 29

As a method to support students’ social adjustment into college, institutions have created
campus activities that are specifically geared towards freshman (Terrion & Daoust, 2011).
Activities such as freshman learning communities, freshman orientation programs, social
gatherings and community engagement projects, which emphasize building rapport between
students within the school community and the surrounding community of the institution (Terrion
& Daoust, 2011).
Financial adjustments are also a transitional experience that many students encounter
(Wong, 2010). For many freshmen students, finances are viewed as a barrier since they do not
have the capital to cover the expenses associated with college (Wong, 2010), thus potentially
resulting in students not returning to college after their first year. Wong (2010) cites a study of
college freshman that found that 65% of the students were concerned with how they were going
to pay for their college education, and that 47% of freshman were expecting to work to offset the
costs associated with college. Aside from students being concerned with their financial standing
and its implications on their ability to continue with their schooling, research has shown that the
financial problems freshmen students encounter can have other implications (Wong, 2014).
Wong (2014) found that students’ financial status can impact their social identity, emotions,
relationships, and personal needs.
The research literature has also identified alcohol and drug use as issues that many
freshman will encounter during their first year (Borsari, Murphy, & Barnett, 2007). The finding
is not surprising, given the fact that freshmen are free from daily parental control, and can
experiment with previously suppressed desires (Bosari, Murphy, & Barnett, 2007). In terms of
alcohol consumption, researchers have found that 42% of freshman had at least one episode of
heavy drinking in the past month (Borsari et al., 2007.). In explaining such behavior, the meta-
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 30

analysis of Bosari, Murphy, and Barnett (2007) found that freshman students engage in alcohol
consumption in order to cope with the stresses associated with stressors, to “fit-in” with their
peers, the perceived norms of drinking, greek membership and drinking game participation.
The most common illicit drug that students will encounter is marijuana (Suerken et al.,
2014). For many students, marijuana use typically begins before entering college. According to
some researchers, 57.7% of students that use marijuana start prior to entering college (Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Administration, 2012). However, Suerken et al. (2014) found that
8.5% of freshmen begin using marijuana during their freshman year.
The use of alcohol and drugs is a problematic issue for many freshmen students because
not only must they cope with potential academic, personal, financial and mental health barriers,
the use of drugs and alcohol have been associated with negative factors such as: lower grade
point averages, less time spent studying, cognitive impairment, physical violence, injuries and
legal problems (Suerken et al., 2014; Del Boca et al., 2014; Bosari, Murphy & Barnett, 2007).
To counter the potential of drug and alcohol abuse, the literature review completed by Larimer
and Cronce (2002) found that institutions have implemented educational awareness programs,
cognitive-behavioral skills-based programs, motivational/feedback based approaches and
targeted interventions to high-risk subpopulations. However, the efficacy of the programs were
not clear.
Summary of the Freshman Experience
The transition to college for freshmen is vastly different for students (Clark, 2005). To
better capture the experiences that freshmen encounter, both academic and non-academic studies
were reviewed. Based on the literature related to academic experiences, freshmen can be
generally expected to experience a period of adjustment in relation to study skills, self-regulation
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 31

(due to the amount of freedom they have), and re-adjustment to the rigors of their classes (Turner
& Thompson, 2014; Thompson, 2008; Michael, Dickson, Ryan, & Koefer, 2010). To support
the academic transition, institutions have implemented a variety of freshmen-centered programs,
such as mentoring programs and freshmen orientation courses, to support students’ academic
well-being (Michael, Dickson, Ryan, & Koefer, 2010; Roberts & Styron, 2009)
In terms of non-academic experiences, the research has found that students will encounter
a wide-rage of experiences. One key area is related to the social realm, in which freshmen
students must develop a new social network (Pillay & Ngcobo, 2010; Malinga-Musamba, 2014).
In order to support students, institutions have developed campus activities that focus on freshmen
students (e.g. freshmen learning communities, freshmen orientation programs, and community
engagement projects) (Terrion & Daoust, 2011). The research has also found that many
freshmen experience financial barriers, given the high cost of college. The significance of
financial problems for freshmen is that it can impact both the ability of students to return to
college in subsequent semesters, but also can impact students’ identities, emotions and
relationships (Wong, 2014). Lastly, given the new freedoms that many freshmen encounter, the
relationship of freshmen with drugs and alcohol was examined. Studies have shown that
freshmen are prone to drugs and alcohol consumption so that they can cope with the stressors, to
“fit-in” with their peers, the perceived norms of drinking, Greek membership, and drinking game
participation (Bosari, Murphy & Barnett, 2007). As a method to combat drug and alcohol use in
freshmen, a variety of approaches have been attempted. However, the efficacy of the approaches
is not clear (Larimer & Cronce, 2002)

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 32

Online Learning
Since the context of this study will be on students participating within a flipped
classroom, a brief discussion on the background of the relatively new pedagogical method will
be discussed. Specifically, this section will review the development of online learning and why
and how it has evolved over a period of time. Ultimately, a history should help the reader have a
stronger conceptualization of the flipped classroom.
Development of Online Learning
Online learning is considered to have developed as an outgrowth of distance education
(Casey, 2008; Hoskins, 2013; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). As technology has
evolved, institutions in higher education began to utilize the internet and personal computing
devices as a means of reaching students who were not capable of attending their institutions
because of physical and/or geographic barriers (Casey, 2008; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt,
2006). Online learning programs in higher education were also developed so that a more diverse
population of students could attend college; specifically, students who did not have the
socioeconomic means to attend a traditional face-to-face program (Larreamendy-Joerns &
Leinhardt, 2006). The development of online learning platforms has proven to be successful in
the sense that a greater number of institutions are offering online courses, and the enrollment of
online learning programs is growing. Allen and Seaman’s (2010) survey of more than 2,500
colleges and universities found a growth rate of 17.5% in the number of students taking online
courses, which exceeded the 1.2% overall higher education growth rate. Allen and Seaman also
found that a total of 4.6 million students were taking at least one online course at the time of their
study, and that more than one out of four students were enrolled in at least one online course in
the fall term of 2008. The growth can be interpreted as students having accepted the learning
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 33

format; the growth can also be attributed to institutions having embraced the learning method,
especially due to the financial benefits associated with online learning (Means, Toyama,
Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009). The biggest indicator of success, based on the meta-analysis
completed by Means et al. (2009), is that students, on average, perform academically better in
online learning formats than they do in traditional face-to-face classrooms.
Blended Learning
Though there have been various positive associations with online learning, there have
been concerns over the pedagogical approach. For instance, stakeholders have expressed
concern over the lack of physical contact between instructors, the limited social interaction
between students, and the heavy reliance on self-regulatory processes that students must utilize
when enrolled in courses that are strictly online (Graham, 2013; Azevedo & Witherspoon, 2009;
Barnard, Lan, To, Paton & Lai, 2008). The concerns of online learning have contributed to the
development of blended courses (Graham, 2013). Simply put, blended courses can be
understood as classes that utilize both online learning and face-to-face learning (Graham, 2006).
However, a more formal definition of a blended course would be one in which course content is
delivered online 30-70% of the time (Allen & Seaman, 2010). The formal definition helps
distinguish between blended courses and web-enhanced courses, which are essentially face-to-
face courses that sparingly deliver content online (e.g. posting syllabi and/or homework online).
Educational stakeholders have supported the blended approach for various reasons. Blended
courses are perceived by stakeholders to provide students with the best of both online learning
and face-to-face learning approaches. Furthermore, blended courses are perceived to mitigate
the concerns that stakeholders have expressed over solely using an online approach (Graham,
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 34

2013). The biggest cause for support, however, has been that blended courses on average
produce greater student achievement outcomes than strictly online courses (Means, et al., 2009).
Summary of Online Learning

Online learning has its roots in distance education and was introduced by educational
institutions with the advancement of technology (Casey, 2008; Hoskins, 2013). Although online
learning has experienced a great level of success, as evidenced by its growth in enrollment and
impact on student achievement, stakeholders have expressed concern over the learning format
(Graham, 2013). The concerns have contributed to the development of blended courses
(Graham, 2013), which delivers course content by utilizing both the internet and face-to-face
teaching methods (Allen & Seaman, 2010). In examining the context of this study and the
environment in which this study will be completed, the flipped classroom can be described as a
type of blended course. However, the flipped classroom utilizes a specific type of pedagogical
approach. The flipped classroom will be described in the following section.
The Flipped Classroom
The flipped classroom can be understood as a form of blended learning; students
participating in a flipped classroom participate in both face-to-face and online learning. This
instructional approach is a relatively new pedagogical model that has gained a significant amount
of attention by educational stakeholders in recent years (Hoffman, 2014). The primary reason
why the model has garnered so much attention has been because of its shift in the pedagogical
approach towards learning. Although there is no single method of implementing a flipped
classroom, the basic premise behind the flipped classroom is to have students participate in
activities that have traditionally been assigned as homework while students are attending class,
and to have students asynchronously view recorded lectures prior to entering their classrooms.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 35

Since there is an emphasis on utilizing both direct instruction to students and applied learning,
there are two instructional theories utilized in the flipped classroom, both behaviorist and
constructivist (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Instructors perceive the theoretical framework behind
the flipped classroom as an effective approach since students do not lose pertinent information
that generally is delivered through lectures. Moreover, students can have a greater amount of in-
class time to apply their knowledge towards higher levels of thought by applying the information
they have gained from viewing lectures prior to entering their classes (Mason, Shuman & Cook
2013).
As previously mentioned, there is no single method of implementing the flipped
classroom. However, schools have traditionally created flipped classrooms by using the internet
and learning management systems to post asynchronous lecture materials such as: videotaped
recordings of lectures, slideshow presentations, and audio recordings for students to learn from
prior to entering the classroom (Gannod, et al., 2008). A benefit of the asynchronous delivery of
lectures shown across numerous studies is that students have expressed their appreciation for
being able to access content at all times and assess their own knowledge and learning process
about the topics by reviewing the given media files at their own pace (Delialioglu & Yildirim,
2007; Deperlioglu & Kose, 2010).
The types of activities that occur within the flipped classroom are more application-based
and student-centered. Students often participate in hands-on assignments (e.g. problem-based
assignments and group projects) (Gannod, et al., 2008). The shift to a more student-centered
approach towards learning has been viewed by instructors as beneficial because it emphasizes
the application of students’ knowledge in the classroom and exposes students to the types of
cognitive activities that students will be required to participate in once they join the workforce
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 36

(Talbert, 2014). The benefit of having students participate in student-centered learning is
reinforced by research studies that show greater levels of student learning when instructors
emphasize student-centered approaches towards teaching, versus the traditional teacher-centered
form of teaching.
The shift in the pedagogical approach has not only changed the format of classes, but has
also caused the roles of both instructors and students to change as well. Since students are
actively learning in the face-to-face segment of the flipped classroom, instructors are viewed as
facilitators of student learning, rather than depositors of knowledge. Gannod, et al. (2008) state
that instructors are seen as shepherds of knowledge development in their classrooms who
directly interact with students in the classroom. The direct interaction allows for teachers to
provide immediate feedback to students, clarifying understanding for students if necessary,
thereby promoting a greater level of individualized attention towards students’ learning.
In regard to students, rather than being viewed as passive learners within the classroom,
students are expected to apply their content knowledge within the classroom through active
learning. Thus, students are expected to gain the foundational knowledge outside the classroom,
so that once they enter the classroom they can have a more dynamic experience through a
consistent cycle of application of knowledge, collaboration and feedback from their peers and
instructors (Gannod, et al., 2008).
Best Practices for the Flipped Classroom
Although the instructional approach of the flipped classroom has the potential to advance
traditional teaching methods and strengthen student achievement, many of the benefits cannot be
actualized unless an instructor implements the method in an effective manner (Estes & Ingram,
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 37

2014; Milman, 2012; Miller, 2012). Based on the literature, the following group of
characteristics should be present in an effective flipped classroom.
Intentional content development. In order for a flipped classroom to be effective,
instructors must intentionally develop lessons that demonstrate an instructor’s deep
understanding of the knowledge and skills that students will need in order to participate
effectively in application-based activities (Flipped Learning Network, 2012). Instructors must
intentionally plan out their curriculum so that the asynchronous lectures that students view
outside of the classroom compliment the student-centered pedagogy that takes place when
students meet face-to-face (Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014). Also, because students are
applying their knowledge in the classroom, instructors must be highly cognizant of the types of
feedback and learning scaffolding that they will likely have to provide their students, as they
guide student learning in the classroom (Flipped Learning Network, 2012). Lastly, instructors
must intentionally develop activities that students are ensured of enough time to carry out while
in class (Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014).
Engagement. The use of engaging models of instruction, such as project-based learning
or game-based learning is also a key aspect to an effective flipped classroom (Miller, 2012). The
benefit of such an approach is that students can understand the relevance of their learning, as
opposed to believing that the course content is important because students will see the materials
on an exam (Miller, 2012). Furthermore, instructors must develop engaging asynchronous
materials that take into consideration how long students are willing to view the materials without
being distracted, sidetracked, or without fast-forwarding through the content (Miller, 2012).
Community building. Since a key aspect of the flipped classroom is for students to
collaborate with each other, instructors must develop a learning environment in which students
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 38

connect and collaborate well with one another (Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014). Instructors
can facilitate such a setting by developing icebreakers, encouraging students to share thoughts
freely, without judgment, and developing lessons with a highly intentional plan (Kim, Kim,
Khera, & Getman, 2014).
Flexible setting. The flipped classroom should also allow students to learn in a flexible
environment, since the classroom allows for a variety of learning modes (Flipped Learning
Network, 2014). As such, students should be able to physically rearrange their learning spaces to
work collaboratively or independently (Flipped Learning Network, 2014).
Formative assessments. Given that students often have less support while learning
outside of the flipped classroom, researchers have stated that flipped classrooms can benefit from
various forms of formative assessments to support student learning (Milman, 2012; Miller, 2012,
The Flipped Network, 2014). Both Miller (2012) and Milman (2012) describe how students can
benefit from routinely participating in assessments which require students to view videos,
process what they have learned, and understand the significance and relevance of the material.
Additionally, while in class, instructors must be given timely feedback to ensure that students
can accurately apply their knowledge and/or skills during student-centered activities (Kim, Kim,
Khera, & Getman, 2014).
Technological planning. Lastly, instructors must ensure that all of their students have
access to the technology required to participate in the flipped classroom (Miller, 2012), and that
the technical quality of the videos are high so that students can view the recordings without any
issues (Milman, 2012).

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 39

General Studies of the Flipped Classroom
As with any area of interest, researchers have studied the flipped classroom in various
contexts. Based on reviewing the research associated with the flipped classroom, the current
investigator has found that most studies have examined its academic impact on student learning
and the perceptions that students and instructors have of the approach. Researchers have also
examined lesser studied areas such as how to effectively develop a flipped classroom, how the
flipped classroom impacts effort and the efficiency of the flipped classroom. The context and
findings of studies completed on the flipped classroom will be described in the following
sections.
Academic effect. In relation to the flipped classroom and its impact on student learning,
studies have generally found that, at worst, the flipped classroom does not significantly diminish
student learning (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014), and in some instances can improve
learning (Missildine, Fountain, Summers, & Gosselin, 2013; Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013).
Missildine, Fountain, Summers, and Gosselin (2013) completed a quasi-experiment by
comparing an adult health course that utilized the traditional classroom approach versus a class
that utilized the flipped pedagogy. The researchers found that students participating in the
flipped classroom earned statistically significant higher exams scores than their peers who were
not in the flipped course (Missildine, Fountain, Summers & Gosselin, 2013). In the study
completed by Missildine et al. (2013), the mean exam score of the flipped classroom was 81.89,
versus the mean score of students in the traditional classroom of 79.79. Although the findings of
Missildine et al. (2013) supported the application of the flipped classroom, a key limitation to the
study was that the courses were led by different instructors, and students may have been effected
by the quality of each instructor rather than the method of instruction each course utilized.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 40

The study completed by Davies, Dean, and Ball (2013) examined students enrolled in an
undergraduate introductory-level Excel course that utilized the flipped classroom approach,
versus students enrolled in a traditional class and a simulation class. Using a pre-test/post-test
quasi-experimental mixed methods approach, the researchers found that students enrolled in the
flipped course had a mean post-test score of 88.9, which was significantly higher than students
enrolled in the regular Excel course (M = 85.4) and Excel simulation course (M = 80.4). An
interesting aspect of the study completed by Davies, Dean and Ball is that the pre-test scores of
the students enrolled in the simulation course were slightly higher than those of students enrolled
in the flipped classroom. Some limitations of the Davies, Dean, and Ball study were that the
researchers had a low response rate (69%) from students enrolled in the courses, the results from
the study could have had extraneous variables that affected the findings, and the fact that the
comparison groups were different sizes.
Baepler, Walker, and Driessen (2014) also completed a study examining the flipped
classroom’s effect on student learning. The researchers collected data from students
participating in a traditional large lecture course, a large active learning course, and a flipped
course. After the completion of the courses, students completed a multiple-choice post-test and
the researchers found no statistically significant difference in achievement between the courses
(Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014). Although the study completed by Baepler, Walker and
Driessen did not support the idea that the flipped classroom improves learning, it did
demonstrate that the method is at least as effective as the traditional classroom.
Student perceptions of the flipped classroom. In addition to studies measuring the
flipped classroom’s impact on student achievement, researchers have also examined how
students and instructors view the instructional method. The study completed by Roach (2012)
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 41

surveyed students participating in an undergraduate microeconomics course. Roach found that
94% students would take a course utilizing the flipped approach, 62% of the students surveyed
agreed that being able to discuss topics supported their learning, and 82% stated that they liked
the ability to rewind the asynchronous videos. A major limitation to the study, however, was
that the macroeconomics course did not implement the flipped classroom approach 100% of the
time (Roach, 2012).
Gilboy, Heinerichs, and Pazzaglia (2014) also surveyed students’ perceptions of the
flipped classroom by collecting data from two undergraduate nutrition courses. Out of 196
students, Gilboy et al. obtained 142 completed Likert scale surveys. They found that: a) 76% of
the students preferred the video lectures versus the face-to-face lecture on a topic, b) 64%
preferred in-class activities over listening to a professor lecture, c) 62% thought they learned
more effectively from the video lectures than the face-to-face lecture, d) 54% believed they
learned to apply material more effectively compared to traditional teaching methods, and e) 70%
of the students still felt connected to the teacher during the virtual component of the flipped
classroom (Gilboy, Heinerichs, & Pazzaglia 2014).
Not all studies, however, support the idea that students perceive the flipped classroom
positively. Strayer (2012) used a mixed methods approach to compare an undergraduate
statistics course utilizing the traditional teaching approach versus the same course that utilized
the flipped classroom approach. To collect data, Strayer had participants complete the College
and University Classroom Environment Inventory and qualitative data from audiotapes of
classroom sessions, individual and focus-group interviews, field notes from team members and
reflective journal entries. Based on both the qualitative and quantitative sets of data, Strayer
found that students had a negative perception of the task orientation in the flipped classroom. In
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 42

other words, students perceived the flipped classroom to be fragmented, and thus had a less
positive experience than students in the traditional statistics course (Strayer, 2012).
Teacher perceptions of the flipped classroom. Like students, studies have shown that
teachers view the flipped classroom approach both positively and negatively (Hao & Lee, 2015;
Herreid & Schiller 2013). Hao and Lee (2015) completed a mixed-methods study that included
470 pre-service teachers, to understand the concerns that pre-service teachers had in relation to
the flipped classroom approach. Both the qualitative and quantitative findings supported the
finding that teachers predominately had self-concerns. For instance, pre-service teachers were
concerned with: being able to effectively implement student-centered instruction, understanding
how to modify instruction, understanding how to manage a flipped classroom, and not
understanding how to maintain student engagement (Hao & Lee, 2015). The researchers also
noted that instructors were concerned with the potential technology barrier for students, given
that technology is an inherent aspect of the flipped classroom (Hao & Lee, 2015).
The concerns from instructors have also been supported in a poll completed by Herreid
and Schiller (2013), which found that instructors were concerned with students adjusting to the
new idea of viewing lectures outside the classroom and then completing assignments in the
classroom. The researches have also found that instructors were concerned with the amount of
time they would have to invest in order to develop effective videos/slideshows for student
viewing (Herreid & Schiller, 2013). A key limitation to Herreid and Schiller’s findings,
however, was that their study did not detail the specifics of how they arrived at their findings.
Although instructors have raised their concerns over the flipped classroom, See and
Conry (2014) have found that some instructors find the flipped classroom beneficial, and are
willing to implement the pedagogy. To arrive at their conclusion, See and Conry developed a
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 43

faculty development program that utilized the flipped classroom approach. Participants of the
program were required to view a video that detailed how to construct their own paper crane (See
& Conry, 2014). Afterwards, during the in-class portion of the development program, faculty
members were given a quiz on the “crane” assignment, followed by discussions and activities
around how to implement an effective flipped classroom. Ultimately, 88% of the faculty
members stated that they would consider utilizing the flipped classroom approach for one of their
courses in the following year (See & Conry, 2014). A limitation of the study completed by See
and Conry, however, is that the researchers did not elaborate on why instructors found the
flipped classroom approach worthy of being applied.
Additional studies on flipped learning. Most studies on the flipped classroom have
examined students’ perceptions and its impact on student achievement. Some researchers,
however, have focused on areas that have been examined less. For instance, Hung (2014)
developed a quasi-experimental design, to compare undergraduate English language learner
courses. One course Hung examined utilized the traditional flipped classroom approach, while
another utilized a semi-structured approach. By collecting data from 75 participants that
completed lesson assessments, lesson study logs, a 26 item learning experience questionnaire,
and structured interviews, the researcher found that students participating in the flipped course
put forth more effort in their learning, and were more motivated to learn (Hung, 2014). The
statistics show that the students in the flipped course studied 15 minutes more than students in
the semi-structured course (Hung, 2014). Hung also found that students were more motivated to
learn while participating in the flipped course because they were able to develop some of the
basic language skills prior to entering the classroom. One student stated, “I feel more
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 44

comfortable and confident to interact with others, because I can watch the videos before class as
many times as I need to until I gain full comprehension.” (Hung 2014, p. 92).
In the report completed by Baelper, Walker, and Driessen (2014), the researchers found
that the flipped classroom approach could potentially lessen the amount of time students needed
to be in class by two thirds, while also ensuring that the students in the flipped classroom would
achieve at least as well as students in a traditional classroom. To arrive at their finding, Baelper,
Walker and Driessen (2014) examined undergraduate students enrolled in a traditional general
chemistry course, which met for 50 minutes, three times a week, versus the same course utilizing
the flipped classroom approach, which met one time a week for 50 minutes. Using assessment
data from exams, the researchers found that students did not have statistically significant
differences in achievement. A key weakness of the study, however, was that students were not
randomly sampled, and instead students self-selected the courses (Baelper, Walker, & Driessen,
2014)
Kim, Kim, Khera, and Getman (2014) also completed a unique study in relation to the
flipped classroom. Using a mixed methods approach, Kim et al. examined the three instances of
the flipped classroom at a single institution to identify key design principles for the flipped
classroom. Upon collecting and analyzing the data, Kim et al. found that the flipped classroom
design framework should include a high level of teacher support in order for cognitive presence
to be high. Additionally, the study found that students preferred greater support in the form of
structured guidance when they engaged in student-centered activities (Kim, Kim, Khera, &
Getman, 2014). Lastly, Kim et al. found that instructors must go beyond simply providing
student-centered activities so that rapport could be developed between the instructor and his/her
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 45

students. The finding suggests that instructors must develop highly purposeful and well-
developed lessons (Kim, et al., 2014).
Perceptions of Flipped Learning in Engineering Education
Currently, in relation to engineering students participating in flipped classrooms, the
primary emphasis of most studies has been on understanding student perceptions (Bishop &
Verleger, 2013). In synthesizing the research literature that has been completed, the predominant
finding has been that students have positive perceptions of the flipped classroom (Toto &
Nguyen 2009; Mason, et al., 2013; Bishop & Verleger, 2013). In the study completed by Toto
and Nguyen (2009), the researchers collected survey data from 74 students enrolled in two
sections of an industrial engineering course that utilized the flipped classroom approach. Toto
and Nguyen found that students enjoyed the flipped classroom because they understood the
topics better, since they had learned some of the materials prior to entering the course.
Furthermore, Toto and Nguyen found that students had positive perceptions of being able to
apply their knowledge to solve practical problems related to the engineering field. Mason,
Shuman, and Cook (2013) also completed a study on student perceptions of a mechanical
engineering course that utilized the flipped classroom approach. Mason et al. surveyed all of the
students (n = 20) during the fourth and tenth weeks of the course. Using a Likert scale survey,
and an in-class discussion about the course (facilitated by instructors not teaching the course),
Mason et al. found that students believed the flipped classroom better prepared them for learning,
that the combination of the videos and student-centered pedagogy were stronger contributors to
their learning than homework, and that they enjoyed being able to review the video materials.
Although both studies by Mason, Shuman, and Cook (2013) and Toto and Nguyen (2009)
found that engineering students held positive perceptions of the flipped classroom, there were
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 46

some areas of concern, similar to what the general research on flipped classrooms has found.
Mason, Shuman and Cook found that although students perceived the flipped course positively,
31% of the students surveyed believed the flipped course would be appropriate for only senior
courses, 32% percent believed the approach would be appropriate for junior and senior level
courses, and 37% of the students believed the approach would be good for sophomore, junior
and senior classes. No students believed the course would be appropriate for freshmen level
courses. The reason may be due to the fact that freshmen students may not have the knowledge
to understand where to apply the concepts being learned in the classroom because of the
increased amount of new concepts they would be learning as first-year students (Mason,
Shuman, & Cook, 2013). In the study completed by Toto and Nguyen, the researchers found that
students negatively viewed the amount of unstructured time the flipped classroom created. For
instance, students did not enjoy having to wait for tasks to start. Toto and Nguyen also found
that students believed that tasks in the flipped classroom should require greater amounts of
participation so that students would not be side-tracked by other activities like socializing with
their peers.
Studies on Learning and Achievement in Engineering Education
In addition to examining student perceptions, researchers, to a lesser extent, have also
studied the impact that flipped classrooms have had on engineering students and their
performance (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). So far, in the context of engineering programs,
research suggests that flipped classrooms can positively impact student learning, or at worst that
it does not impact learning in a negative way when compared to traditional face-to-face
classrooms. For instance, Mason, Shuman, and Cook (2013) compared engineering students
enrolled in a mechanical engineering flipped classroom versus a traditional classroom, and found
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 47

that students enrolled in the flipped classroom performed statistically better on assessment
problems involving open-loop analysis, root locus-based design, and Bode plot-based controller
design. Mason, et al. also found that students participating in the flipped classroom performed
statistically better better than students in the traditional classroom on design problems. Aside
from the aforementioned types of problems, results from the students did not differ in a
statistically significant manner.
Day and Foley (2006) also completed a study that examined the effects of the flipped
classroom on students’ achievement levels. Day and Foley's study was a quasi-experimental
study, completed over a 15 week period, which compared students enrolled in a flipped
classroom versus students enrolled in a traditional classroom. Both the control and experimental
group of students were enrolled in an introductory human-computer interactions course (Day &
Foley, 2006). To ensure the validity of their findings, the courses were as identical as possible.
Both courses shared the following characteristics: instructor teaching the course, topics being
covered, lecture-slides used, assigned readings, all class assignments and time allowed for tasks
(Day & Foley, 2006). Furthermore, to ensure that grading differences were not a result of using
two teaching assistants’ (TA) grading styles, assignments were made anonymous, and graded
alternatively by one or the other TA. The one assignment that was not graded using such a
method was the semester design project, which was graded by both TAs using the same grading
criteria (Day & Foley, 2006). As a conclusion to their study, Day and Foley found that students
enrolled in the flipped classroom performed better on all assignments versus the students
enrolled in the traditional classroom course, and found a statistically significant difference in
students’ final grades. Students participating in the flipped classroom had an average course
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 48

final grade of 88.23, versus students enrolled in the traditional course who’s average score was
79.95 (Day & Foley, 2006).
Redekopp and Ragusa (2013) also studied the impact of the flipped classroom on student
achievement. Specifically, the researchers examined the effects of the flipped classroom on
students’ abilities to solve lower-order and higher-order learning outcomes over a three semester
period, and compared the findings to data obtained from students who had previously enrolled in
the same course in a traditional classroom format. Using data from final exams and concept
inventories, Redekopp and Ragusa found that the students in the flipped classroom did not
significantly differ in their ability to solve lower-order problems. Redekopp and Ragusa did,
however, find that flipped classroom students were more capable of solving higher-order
problems that required them to analyze, evaluate and create information. To arrive at their
findings, Redekopp and Ragusa compared the scores students earned on course projects.
Ultimately, Redekopp and Ragusa found that students participating in the flipped course
averaged 11% higher on the course projects. The researchers utilized course projects, instead of
scores on assessments, because the projects specifically emphasized higher-order thinking to
complete.
Summary of The Flipped Classroom
Flipped classrooms are a relatively new pedagogical approach for many institutions. The
primary difference between flipped classrooms and traditional classrooms is that students
asynchronously view lectures outside of the class and when attending classes students engage in
student-centered lessons (Gannod, et al., 2008). Due to the “flip” in pedagogy, the expectations
of instructors and students change. Instructors are viewed more as facilitators of knowledge, and
students are viewed as active participants in their learning process (Gannod, et al., 2008). To
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 49

ensure that the flipped classroom is utilized properly, the research suggests that instructors must
plan intentionally, utilize engaging materials, allow for a flexible setting, build a culture of
collaboration, incorporate formative assessments and remove all technology barriers that might
exist with the flipped classroom approach (Miller, 2012; Kim, Kim, Khera & Getman, 2014; The
Flipped Learning Network, 2014; Milman, 2012). Currently, most studies have focused on the
flipped classroom's impact on learning, along with how students and instructors perceive the
pedagogy. Overall, research related to student achievement has found that the flipped classroom
does not negatively impact student learning (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014), and instead
can improve student learning (Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013). In terms of perception, (Gilboy,
Heinerichs, & Pazzaglia, 2014; Roach, 2012) have found that students positively view certain
aspects of the flipped classroom (e.g. the ability to review videos), while also having some
concerns with the flipped classroom (e.g. the unstructured feeling of the flipped classroom
during face-to-face meetings) (Strayer, 2012). Researchers have demonstrated that instructors
also have mixed perceptions, as some view the flipped classroom approach as beneficial given its
student-centered approach (Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013), while others have concerns over
certain aspects (e.g. technology barriers) (Herreid & Schiller, 2013). Less explored areas in
relation to the flipped classroom have also been studied which have shown that student effort can
be improved in flipped classrooms (Hung, 2014) and seat time can be reduced while maintaining
the same level of achievement in flipped classrooms (Baelper, Walker, & Driessen, 2014), and
that effective flipped classrooms have a specific set of attributes (Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman,
2014)

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 50

Self-Regulated Learning
The idea of self-regulated learning grew from psychologists who were interested in
studying how self-control developed in both adults and children (Schunk, 2005). Schunk (2005)
states that initial researchers sought to understand self-regulation so that they could teach
individuals how to change undesirable or harmful behaviors. For instance, psychologists
attempted to utilize the idea of self-regulation to teach individuals with aggressive tendencies
how to alter their behavior so that they would not exhibit aggression. As the study of self-
regulation progressed, psychologists began to utilize the construct within contexts that involved
learning (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 1999). Part of the reason why the construct of self-
regulation shifted into academic and other learning contexts is because there was a belief that
students’ abilities did not fully explain the achievement levels of students, which suggested that
there were other variables (i.e. self-regulated learning) that factored into explaining student
achievement (Zimmerman, 2002).
Within the context of education and learning, the construct of self-regulated learning has
had a number of varying definitions (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 1999). However, this study
will define self-regulated learning as a self-directed process that students use in order to develop
academic skills through the use of their mental abilities (Zimmerman, 2002). Self-regulated
learning, therefore, is viewed not as a singular mental skill but rather as a process which
individuals utilize to improve their learning and/or reach a specific goal (Zimmerman, 2008).
Because self-regulated learning takes into consideration an individual’s own mental skills it is
viewed as a self-directive process (Zimmerman, 2002). It must be stated that, although self-
regulated learning may be viewed as a self-directive process, this does not imply that one’s
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 51

physical and/or social environment does not impact the self-regulated learning process of an
individual (Boekaerts, et al., 2000).
Within the construct of self-regulated learning there are several things involved which
precipitate it to occur. This makes it much more complex than being understood as a singular
skill that is used for learning. First, self-regulated learning involves an individual’s self-
awareness, self-motivation and behavioral skills so that regulation can occur appropriately
(Zimmerman, 2002). Also, self-regulated learning involves more than a characteristic that a
person either does or does not possess. Instead, self-regulated learning involves the utilization of
specific processes that are individually adapted for a person’s learning goal. For instance,
individuals must know: a) the types of goals they must set for themselves when learning, b) the
kinds of strategies to utilize when learning, c) how to monitor their progress towards a goal, d)
how to effectively manage their resources towards achieving a goal, e) how to self-evaluate the
strategies that are being used to learn, f) how to link results with the strategies they have used to
learn, and g) how to adapt their learning strategies towards learning goals (Zimmerman, 2002).
Furthermore, the self-regulated learning process also involves the ideas of self-efficacy and
interest which motivates students to act in a self-regulated manner (Zimmerman, 2002).
Models of Self-Regulated Learning
To understand self-regulated learning and how it occurs there have been a number of
theories developed to explain how self-regulated learning occurs. However, the most empirically
supported theories in the past are those described by Boekaerts and Niemivirta (2000),
Borkowski (1996), Pintrich and Degroot (1990), Winne and Hardin, and Zimmerman (2000)
(Puustinen & Pulkkinen 2001). Although each model differs, they all describe self-regulated
learning starting with a forethought phase, a performance phase and an appraisal phase
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 52

(Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001; Schuitema, Peetsma, & Veen, 2010). The forethought phase can
generally be described as phase when learners begin to prepare themselves towards an outcome;
the performance phase can generally be described as a stage in which individuals utilize and self-
monitor a specific learning strategy that can be used towards achieving an outcome; and the
appraisal phase can generally be described as the last phase of self-regulated learning when an
individual can assess the effectiveness of their learning strategy that was used during the
performance phase. Puustinen and Pulkkinen (2001) state that the previously described self-
regulated learning theories can all be viewed as being cyclical in nature, thus, the appraisal phase
of each stage of self-regulated learning has an impact on future preparatory processes
(Schuitema, Peetsma, & Veen, 2012). In other words, if individuals utilize a learning strategy to
achieve an outcome and find themselves to be successful in achieving the given outcome, then in
future scenarios the individual may choose to utilize the same learning strategy. It must be
understood, however, that the success of utilizing one learning strategy does not always imply it
will be successful in attaining future goals, due to the varying nature of each learning objective.
In examining self-regulated learning, this study will utilize Zimmerman’s model of self-regulated
learning, which has its foundations in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). The details of
Zimmerman’s (2000) framework will be summarized later in this chapter.
Assumptions of Self-Regulated Learning Models
In addition to the three phases that most self-regulated learning models share, most self-
regulated learning models also have four general underlying assumptions (Pintrich, 2004). The
first assumption is that learners actively participate in their learning process and that during the
learning process individuals create meaning, goals and strategies from their own minds (internal
environment) and the information that surrounds the individual (external environment) (Pintrich,
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 53

2004). The second assumption, that is related to the first, is that individuals can control the self-
regulated learning process. In other words, individuals can control some aspects of their own
cognition, motivation and behavior, as well as some aspects of their environment (Pintrich,
2004). The second assumption does not mean, however, that individuals will actually influence
certain aspects of the self-regulated learning process, but rather that there can be the possibility
of doing so (Pintrich, 2004). A third assumption in most self-regulated learning models is that
there is an assumed goal that an individual is attempting to realize (Pintrich, 2004). This means
that while an individual is attempting to meet a goal, one can assess the effectiveness of their
learning process, and if the process is ineffective one can make adjustments towards reaching an
identified goal. The fourth general assumption is that self-regulated learning activities are the
mediators between a person and a given context that lead to achievement (Pintrich, 2004). This
means that a person’s characteristics are not the sole influencers of learning and achievement, nor
are the contextual attributes of a classroom environment. Rather, it is the self-regulation that
mediates between a person and context that leads to achievement (Pintrich, 2004; Talbert, 2014).
The Importance of Self-Regulated Learning in Flipped Classrooms
The important findings about self-regulated learning research in education have been the
correlation that has been found to exist between students’ abilities to self-regulate when learning
and their levels of achievement (Kistner, Rakoczy, Otto, Ewijk, & Kleime, 2010). Researchers
have found that characteristics of individuals with higher levels of self-regulation can be
predictive of students’ academic performance (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986; Sitzmann &
Ely, 2011). When specifically examining the learning context of this study, the importance of
understanding the processes related to self-regulated learning is that flipped classrooms offer an
online component to learning, which can often be viewed as a non-linear learning environment
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 54

and also gives a greater level of control when learning (Winters, Greene, & Costich, 2008;
Narciss, Proske, & Koerndle, 2007). The greater level of control means that students must rely
on their own abilities to understand how to effectively learn, meaning that students must apply
self-regulating learning processes to learn. Furthermore, due to the constructivist approach of
the flipped classroom, students must place a greater emphasis on self-regulated learning since
they are actively engaged in constructing their knowledge through participatory learning
methods (Schuitema, Peetsma, & Veen, 2012).
Summary of Self-Regulation
Research in self-regulated learning developed out of an attempt to understand student
achievement (Zimmerman, 2002). Currently there are numerous models of explaining how self-
regulated learning occurs. However, the most widely accepted models explain self-regulated
learning as occurring in three stages: forethought, performance, and appraisal (Puustinen &
Pulkkinen 2001). In understanding self-regulated learning there are four assumptions. First,
individuals are assumed to actively participate in the learning process; second, it is assumed that
they can control parts of the process; third, individuals are assumed to be attempting to reach a
goal/standard when learning; and lastly, it is assumed that self-regulated learning processes are
mediators between an individual and their learning (Pintrich, 2004). The following section will
review research that has been completed, as it relates to the research questions of this study.
Related Research on Self-Regulated Learning
The following section will review and critique existing research that has been completed
that relates to the research question of the current study. Due to the lack of research related to
self-regulation and the flipped classroom, research related to self-regulation and web-based
learning will be examined, given that the flipped classroom can be viewed as an internet-based
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 55

method of instruction. Specifically, research related to how students self-regulate their learning
in web-based classrooms versus traditional classrooms will be reviewed. Additionally, research
related to enhancing students’ self-regulation processes within the context of internet-based
classrooms will also be reviewed.
Self-Regulated Learning Processes in Internet-Based Classes
Whipp and Chiarelli (2004) completed a case study on self-regulation. Like the current
study, the researchers utilized the self-regulation model developed by Zimmerman (2001) to
examine the self-regulation strategies that graduate students applied while learning a
predominately web-based course. To gather data, the researchers completed a qualitative study
by completing a series of interviews from participants, gathered data from online journals in
which students were to write reflections on their learning experiences in the course, examined
course documents and student postings, while also completing an interview with the instructor
for further triangulation purposes. Upon completing the study, the researchers found that students
utilized many traditional self-regulation strategies (e.g. not talking, help-seeking, utilizing
organizers, and utilizing schedules). However, the researchers also found that students adapted
their self-regulation strategies while learning in the web-based environment. For instance,
during the forethought phase, the researchers found that students had to plan for problems related
to technology when engaging in course activities. During the performance phase of self-
regulation, Whipp and Chiarelli found that students would seek an environment conducive to
learning in order to feel as if they were in a classroom environment. During the self-reflection
phase, the researchers also found that students would utilize discussion postings developed by
their classmates to ensure their own learning. Although the findings of Whipp and Chiarelli shed
some insight into the purpose of the current study, the limitations of the study are: the
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 56

researchers collected data from a limited sample size of six participants, one of the researchers
was also the instructor of the course being researched, and the course was not a flipped course,
which is the pedagogical setting the current study examined.
In addition to completing research on how students self-regulate their learning in internet-
based classrooms, researchers have examined student perceptions of self-regulation in traditional
classrooms versus internet-based courses. Lee and Tsai (2011) found that students participating
in internet-based courses (primarily blended) were perceived to have greater perceptions of self-
regulated learning versus traditional courses. To arrive at their conclusion, Lee and Tsai
compared questionnaire data collected from a broad range of 157 undergraduate and graduate
students that had participated in both traditional courses and internet-based courses. Upon
obtaining the data, Lee and Tsai analyzed their data using the matching paired-t test and found
that students perceived themselves as being more capable and more interested in self-regulated
learning in internet-based courses than traditional courses. A limitation to the conclusions that
Lee and Tsai made, as it relates to the current study, is that the population of students was not
comprised of engineering students, and was, instead, primarily comprised of business and
management students.
Enhancing Self-Regulation in Internet-Based Classes
In addition to studying how students self-regulate their learning, researchers have also
examined how computer-based learning environments could be enhanced to support students’
self-regulation. In the study completed by Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2005), the researchers asked
65 students participating in a distributed learning course to rate the effectiveness of specific web-
based pedagogical tools that supported students’ self-regulated learning. Using a mixed-methods
approach, Dabbagh and Kitsantas found that students’ self-regulation was supported by the tools
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 57

related to content creation and delivery, collaboration and communication and assessment.
Specifically, the researchers found that students perceived sample projects, design documents,
the use of rubrics and availability of email and group discussions as particularly supportive
(Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2005).
Although Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2005) found that students’ self-regulation processes
could be improved by features added to internet-based courses, the meta-analysis completed by
Koerndle (2007), Winters et al. found that students would state that they would utilize the
support tools as aids for self-regulation. However, the studies (Narciss, Proske, & Koerndle,
2007) found that students often exaggerated their use of the tools. Ultimately, the findings by
Winters et al. illustrate the difficulty of enhancing students’ self-regulation processes while
learning.
Summary of Related Research on Self-Regulated Learning
Viewing the flipped classroom as an internet-based classroom sheds some light on how
students may self-regulate their learning in the flipped classroom. The studies completed by
Whipp and Chiarelli (2004) and Lee and Tsai (2011) show that students in internet-based classes
utilized greater self-regulation processes. Based on the findings of Whipp and Chiarelli, students
may utilize a greater range of self-regulation processes due to the added variables that one must
consider when participating in an internet-based class. Additionally, studies have been
completed to examine how self-regulation can be enhanced. Based on the findings of Dabbagh
and Kitsantas (2005) and Winters, Greene, and Costich (2008), the ability to add features
embedded into internet-based classrooms appears to be mixed. In the study completed by
Dabbagh and Kitsantas, students’ self-regulation processes appeared to have been improved by
added tools related to content creation and delivery, collaboration and communication and
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 58

assessment. However, the meta-analysis completed by Winters et al. illustrates that students
would often exaggerate their use of added tools to support self-regulation and/or not utilize the
tools at all.
Social Cognitive Theory
In 1986, Albert Bandura published Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986). In this seminal text, Bandura introduced social cognitive
theory (SCT). At the time of publication, Bandura’s theory was considered a paradigm shift that
moved away from behaviorist explanations of human behavior, towards a more complex and
dynamic explanation of human behavior (Bandura, 2011). Prior to Bandura’s theory, the
prevailing explanation of human behavior was based on behaviorists' beliefs that described
behavior as a result of environmental stimuli (Bandura, 2001). According to Bandura (2001),
behaviorists utilized an input-output model to explain human functioning. A criticism by
Bandura was that behaviorists viewed humans as mindless beings without consciousness that
could impact their own agency. The criticism led to one of the central ideas behind SCT, which
is the idea of triadic reciprocality (Bandura, 1986).
Triadic reciprocality is a construct that shifts away from the linear model of explaining
human behavior. Rather than explaining human behavior simply as a reaction void of personal
attributes between someone and the stimuli received from the surrounding environment
(Bandura, 2011), the construct explains human behavior as the result of an ongoing relationship
between the person (in the form of cognition, affect and biology), the environment and their
behavior (Bandura, 2011). The ongoing relationship was termed reciprocal determinism.
In addition to the general idea of triadic reciprocality, Bandura’s SCT places an emphasis
on cognitive capabilities which impact human agency (Bandura, 2011). Bandura (2011) believed
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 59

that humans possessed a set of unique cognitive abilities to engage in forethought, utilize self-
regulation, and to behave in a self-reflective manner, all of which impact behavior.
According to Bandura (2006), forethought is the capability of humans to not only
envision future events, but to develop specific goals. By using forethought, humans can behave
in motivated and strategic behaviors that support the realization of a goal (Bandura, 2006). The
significance of forethought is that it can motivate individuals to engage in a purposeful manner
around abstract ideas or unrealized events.
Self-regulation is also a fundamental human capability, according to Bandura (1986), and
is also a key feature within SCT. Self-regulation refers to an individual’s ability to behave in a
purposeful and self-directed way, motivated by self-standards, goals, and also by self-evaluation
towards attaining specific goals and/or standards (Bandura, 1991). According to SCT, self-
regulation encompasses the ability to develop goals, create strategies for obtaining
goals/standards, self-monitoring, as well as creating rewards, which motivates self-regulation
and self-direction (Bandura 1991). Since self-regulation is the central focus of this study, a more
in-depth discussion of how self-regulation occurs will be described in the following section,
using Zimmerman’s (2000) self-regulated learning framework.
The third human capability that Bandura (1986) discusses in SCT is the idea of self-
reflection. Self-reflection is viewed as the most distinctively human characteristic by Bandura,
and can be described as the process by which people examine their own cognition and past
experiences, ultimately behaving in a self-evaluative manner (Bandura, 1986; Bandura, 2011).
Self-reflection is a key human capability because based on their own self-reflection, humans can
alter their own thoughts and behavior, thus impacting an individual’s agency in future
circumstances (Bandura 1986; Bandura 2011). Within the idea of self-reflection is the notion of
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 60

self-efficacy, which is a central component of SCT. Self-efficacy refers to the beliefs that one
holds about being able to develop and execute courses of action to achieve a specific goal
(Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is developed from one’s own past experiences, vicarious learning
experiences, feedback from one’s social environment, and from the affective response one feels
after identifying a specific goal (Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy is central to SCT because it is
considered to be the central motivating factor of agency and for individuals choosing to engage
in, or not engage in, specific behaviors (Bandura, 1989). For instance, individuals with low self-
efficacy would have little incentive, and thus motivation, to engage in a specific task, versus an
individual with high self-efficacy. The final expectation a low self-efficacy individual would
likely have is one of not being able to attain an identified goal. Furthermore, self-efficacy is
viewed as a central component of self-reflection, and thus SCT, because the level of self-efficacy
one has towards a goal can impact alternative aspects of an individual (Bandura, 1991).
Depending on the level of self-efficacy one has regarding an identified goal, self-efficacy can
impact the types of goals set by individuals, the level of value one gives to specific activities, the
types of affective response one has, which can promote or hinder one’s progression towards
meeting a goal, and the level of persistence one has towards achieving a goal. Each of the effects
that self-efficacy can have on an individual ultimately results in the type of behavior they engage
in (Bandura, 1989; Bandura, 1991).
Summary of Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory is a theory developed by Albert Bandura which was introduced in
his seminal text, Social Foundations of Though at Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (1986). In
Bandura’s theory he moves away from behaviorist explanations of human functioning, which
views human behavior solely as a response towards environmental stimuli, towards viewing
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 61

behavior as a response from one’s environment as well as one’s own cognitive faculties, hence
the name of the theory. In Bandura’s theory, he explains that behavior is a result of a constant
interaction between one’s own personal factors, the environment and one’s behavior. This
constant and inseparable relationship was termed reciprocal determinism and results in the
notion of triadic reciprocality (Bandura, 1986). In addition to viewing human behavior as a
result of triadic reciprocality, Bandura posited that individuals possessed key cognitive
capabilities that impact human behavior. The cognitive capabilities were identified as: a)
engaging in forethought, b) utilizing self-regulatory mechanisms, c) being able to self-reflect on
one’s own knowledge and d) experiences and observations which impact agency. A central
construct within self-reflection is the idea of self-efficacy, which Bandura described as the
strongest motivating force behind human agency, due to its implications for outcome
expectations, goal setting, affect and persistence.
Today SCT has been adopted by various theorists in explaining different constructs. One
adoption of SCT has been in the development of Zimmerman’s (2000) framework on how self-
regulated learning occurs. Zimmerman’s framework of self-regulated learning will be described
in detail in the following section. The significance of the framework in this study is its
utilization in the data collection process.
Zimmerman’s Framework of Self-Regulated Learning
To inform this study’s investigation of self-regulated learning and data collection
processes, Zimmerman’s (2000) self-regulated learning framework will be utilized.
Zimmerman’s self-regulated learning is based on Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, and,
as such, utilizes Bandura’s idea of triadic reciprocal determinism of personal, behavioral and
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 62

environmental determinants (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001). The three determinants are viewed
as separable, yet at the same time interdependent, variables that influence the functioning of a
person (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001). In personal self-regulation people monitor and adjust
their cognitive and affective states; in behavioral self-regulation, they examine their own
behavior and adjust it as necessary. Environmental self-regulation refers to observing and
modifying environmental conditions or outcomes (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001). Self-
regulation in Zimmerman’s (2000) model occurs in three phases: forethought, performance and
self-reflection. The three phases occur in a cyclical manner, thus, the feedback from prior
learning experiences is used to make future adjustments to move towards a targeted outcome,
performance or strategy. (Zimmerman, 2000). The following section will review the three
phases of self-regulation in Zimmerman’s model.
Forethought Phase
The first phase of self-regulation is the forethought phase. According to Zimmerman
(2000), the forethought phase refers to influential processes that occur prior to one’s actions and
set the stage for self-regulation to occur. The forethought phase has two processes that underlie
it. One category is task analysis and the second is self-motivational beliefs.
Task analysis. Task analysis can occur in two forms: goal setting and strategic
planning. Goal setting relates to the outcomes an individual wishes to achieve during the
forethought phase. The best self-regulators develop goals that are attainable and further develop
their competencies as milestones of proficiency are met. For instance, an actor memorizing a
script may develop a goal of memorizing his or her lines scene by scene, rather than attempting
to memorize his or her set of lines in entirety. If goals are unattainable, one may give up on
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 63

attempting to achieve a specific outcome, thus stopping self-regulation. Therefore, it is important
for individuals to set attainable goals.
The second type of task analysis is strategic planning. Strategic planning refers to the
strategies that an agent develops and utilizes towards an outcome during the forethought phase.
For example, if the goal of an individual was to comprehend an esoteric text, he or she might
plan to take annotated notes while reading to support comprehension. Since an individual does
not necessarily know which strategies will be effective towards achieving an outcome, strategic
planning can be a process of trial and error. If strategies are ineffective towards achieving an
outcome, then an agent must adjust his/her strategies. Conversely, if strategies are effective, then
it is likely that the individual will achieve their intended outcome. However, if a person chooses
to seek out further goals, there may be a need to apply a new strategy that can be utilized towards
a goal since often times strategies are not universally applicable.
Self-motivation beliefs. Since one cannot begin to apply self-regulatory behaviors
without the necessary drive, underlying the forethought phase, and thereby task analysis, are a
set of self-motivational beliefs that motivate an agent to apply self regulatory skills. In
Zimmerman’s theory of self-regulated learning, the self-motivational beliefs are comprised of
four ideas. One is self-efficacy, which refers to one’s own perceived ability to complete a
specific task. A second relates to the outcome expectations and connects with the belief that one
has towards reaching a final outcome. Self-efficacy and outcome expectations differ in the sense
that self-efficacy relates to a more immediate goal, such as being able to earn a passing grade in
a college course, whereas outcome expectation examines the significance of earning a passing
grade in a college course after one graduates to secure a job (Zimmerman, 2000). A third self-
motivating factor in Zimmerman’s theory is the intrinsic interest that one has towards an
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 64

outcome. If an individual views a task as interesting, then he/she is likely to participate and learn
in a self-regulating manner. The final self-motivating factor is goal-orientation that one has
towards learning. Individuals that seek to master a specific goal for their own sake and interest
have a higher likelihood of applying self-regulating strategies.
Performance Phase
The performance phase of self-regulation occurs during an agent’s progress towards an
outcome. There are two types of processes that occur during the performance phase: self-control
and self-observation.
Self-control. Self-control relates to the strategies that aid an individual to concentrate on
a task and maximize their effort towards an outcome (Zimmerman, 2000). Zimmerman states
that self-control can occur through self-instruction, imagery, attention focusing and task
strategies. Self-instruction can be done overtly or covertly, and it is the process by which an
agent describes how to move forward as an individual carries out a task. Imagery is when an
agent creates mental pictures to support learning. A third form of self-control is attention
focusing, which strengthens one’s concentration and blocks extraneous internal or external
distractions. A fourth strategy of self-control described by Zimmerman is task strategies. Task
strategies support learning by breaking down a task into its most essential components.
Self-observation. Self-observation is when individuals recognize specific aspects of
their performance, the conditions that surround their performance, and the effects that specific
aspects of their performance produce (Zimmerman, 2000). The effectiveness that self-
observation has on self-regulated learning depends on a variety of factors, however, one key
variable is the timeframe in which self-observations are made. Typically, self-observations that
occur at or close to a performance are more significant because they allow immediate corrective
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 65

actions. Another key is the information one can obtain from performance feedback. Third is the
accuracy of the feedback, since misperceived or distorted feedback are not useful in correcting
actions. A fourth aspect of effective observation is the valence of the behavior, or the emotional
perspective that one has when conducting self-observation. A positive valence can lead one to
become motivated to self-regulate, whereas a negative valence can lead to self-criticism and
ultimately a drop in self-efficacy or motivation to engage in self-regulated learning.
Zimmerman (2000) describes two methods, self-recording and self-experimentation, as
ways in which self-observations can be greatly enhanced. Self-recordings, Zimmerman states,
can be useful because they can provide immediate feedback, require minimal disruption, and can
provide a longitudinal record to assess progress. When self-observations do not provide
informative feedback, one can engage in self-experimentation to modify various aspects of
behavior that needs to be assessed. Ultimately, this can lead to a greater degree of personal
understanding and can be useful for performance or emotional control.
Self-Reflection Phase
During the third phase, prior to cycling back to the forethought phase of self-regulation,
an agent reflects within him or herself and can either self-judge and/or self-react to his or her
own performances.
Self-judgment. According to Zimmerman’s (2000) framework, people can make self-
judgments by self-assessing their own performances and attributing the causal significance of the
results. They can also self-judge by self-evaluating In comparison to an explicit standard or
goal. For instance, students could self-evaluate their performances on an assessment by
comparing their most recent score to a previous score, assuming that the students’ goals were to
achieve a better result. When making self-evaluations, Zimmerman states that there are four
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 66

types of criteria that people can use: mastery, previous performance, normative and
collaborative. The mastery criteria is based on a hierarchy of goals which lead to the full grasp
of a performance or concept. Because of mastery, orientations involve a continuous monitoring
and evaluation, thus predisposing a learner towards self-regulated behaviors. This orientation
has been advocated by many educational stakeholders. Previous performance is when
individuals compare their current performance to an earlier performance. Normative criteria
refer to the self-judgments made compared to other individuals. For instance, students could
compare their own progress towards a performance or outcome to that of other classmates. The
benefit of using a normative criteria is that it can spur the competitive spirit of students and
heighten the use of self-regulation. However, a drawback of using a normative criteria is that it
can emphasize negative aspects of functioning, which can result in lower self-efficacy and in
turn prevent individuals from being motivated to behave in a self-regulatory manner. Lastly,
self-evaluation can have collaborative criteria. The collaborative criteria can be used to assess
how well an individual supports the overall functioning of a group of agents.
When individuals assess themselves through self-judgment, causal attributions can be
connected to the outcome of a performance. Causal attributions often describe why a specific
result was obtained. Zimmerman cites two common causal attributions that individuals point to:
the limited ability of an individual or lack of effort put towards a goal. It is important to note
that the type of causal attribution one has towards a result can influence the overall self-
regulatory process. For instance, individuals who attribute the lack of cognitive capacity as a
cause of final result may be less inclined to persist towards a goal and may give up, thereby
stopping the self-regulatory process. According to Bandura (1991) individuals’ perceptions
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 67

towards a causal attribution often depend on a variety of factors such as self-efficacy or
environmental factors.
Self-reactions. Self-reactions can occur during the third phase of Zimmerman’s (2000)
framework, which are closely related to both self-judgment and causal attributions. Self-
reactions refer to the affect of an individual after self-judging occurs. Zimmerman (2002)
describes two types of self-reactions, self-satisfying and adaptive (defensive) responses.
A self-satisfying reaction is when individuals react positively towards their
performance. In relation to the process of self-regulation, individuals with a positive affect
toward performances are more likely to feel a greater degree of motivation, thus furthering the
cycle of self-regulation, whereas the opposite occurs when individuals have lower levels of self-
satisfaction (Zimmerman, 2002). It must be noted, however, that self-satisfaction is not simply
dependent upon the completion of the task. The value that one places on a specific outcome also
plays a role in one’s feelings.
Two additional types of self-reaction are defensive and adaptive reactions (Zimmerman
2000). Defensive reactions are reactions to an outcome that result in individuals behaving in
ways that protect their image by removing themselves from opportunities to learn or perform.
Defensive reactions can also include apathy, disengagement and procrastination, which all serve
to limit personal growth (Zimmerman, 2000). An adaptive self-reaction is when individuals
adjust their approach towards a goal by modifying or discarding a particular strategy that has
been used towards a goal. For instance, if an individual reflects on the progress of attaining a
goal and perceives that the rote memorization of information is not an effective method of
retaining and understanding information, then he or she may employ a different strategy towards
retaining and understanding.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 68

Environmental Influences on Self-Regulation
Since Zimmerman’s model is based on social cognitive theory, it must be made clear that
when an individual is engaging in self-regulated behavior, the environment that surrounds a
person also factors into the self-regulatory process; furthermore, individuals that surround a
learner can impact the self-regulatory process when learning, as outside individuals can impact
the forethought, performance and/or self-reflection phases (Zimmerman, 2000).
Development of Self-Regulated Learning
In describing the development of self-regulatory skills within individuals, Zimmerman
takes on a social cognitive perspective and explains the development across four levels
(Zimmerman, 2000). First, according to Zimmerman (2000), individuals can develop self-
regulatory skills initially by observing a model and deducing the main skills and/or strategies a
model utilizes in a specific context (Zimmerman, 2000). Second, is the emulation level; during
this stage an individual emulates a modeled skill and receives social feedback (Zimmerman,
2000). Social feedback is an imperative part of the second level because of the guidance and
reinforcement that individuals can provide in developing the skill (Zimmerman, 2000). The
second stage is considered to be attained by an individual when he or she approaches general
mastery of the model (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001). The third level is self-control and is
reached when an individual is capable of applying a skill that has been demonstrated by a model
when the model is no longer present (Zimmerman, 2000). The final stage is when an individual
reaches the self-regulation level; at this point an individual can utilize a skill in various scenarios
and can also adapt the self-regulatory skill as warranted by personal and contextual conditions
(Zimmerman, 2000). As social cognitive theory suggests, possessing the capacity of self-
regulatory skills does not necessarily mean they will be used by an individual; rather, the
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 69

capacity to self-regulate is also influenced by one’s motivation as well as one’s surrounding
environment (Zimmerman, 2000)
Summary of Zimmerman’s Self-Regulation Model
Zimmerman’s (2000) framework of self-regulated learning developed its roots from
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, and views self-regulated learning as a cyclical process
that occurs in three stages. The first stage is the forethought stage; during the first stage
individuals prepare themselves to engage in accomplishing a learning goal. During the first
stage individuals analyze a given task/goal and develop strategies to accomplish the goal.
Additionally, during the forethought stage individuals gain motivation to engage in a learning
process by: examining their own self-efficacy towards a goal, assessing their outcome
expectations, examining the value perceived from engaging in the learning process, and from the
type of goal orientation held in relation to a learning goal. The second stage of Zimmerman’s
framework is the performance phase. During the performance phase, individuals apply and
perform specific learning strategies in order to accomplish a learning goal. During the
performance phase individuals can self-observe their own learning strategies as well as monitor
personal, behavioral and environmental processes (Rymal, Martini, & Ste-Marie, 2010). The
third stage of Zimmerman’s framework is the self-reflection phase. During the self-reaction
phase individuals can assess their learning and can decide if they have satisfactorily learned a
specific skill or whether a specific learning strategy was effective towards achieving a desired
outcome. If during the self-reflective phase one realizes his or her learning strategy was
ineffective, then the third phase informs the person to utilize a new learning strategy.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 70

For this study Zimmerman’s (2000) framework for self-regulated learning will be
referenced. Specifically, this study will measure: task analysis, motivation, self-control, self-
observations, self-judgments and self-reactions. Additionally, because Zimmerman’s model is
based upon social cognitive theory, environmental structuring and social support will also be
examined.
Chapter Two Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to complete a literature review of the topics that pertain
to this study. In this chapter, one topic that was highlighted was a discussion on engineering
students, which will be the population that this study will seek to gain a better understanding of.
Based on the literature, the engineering population can generally be described as relatively
homogenous, comprised mostly of male students that belong to the majority racial group (Yoder,
2011). Additionally, based on the literature, most students choose to pursue engineering because
of their strengths math and science (Honken & Ralstan, 2013). Lastly, in relation to engineering
students, one of the key expectations that students are expected to possess prior to entering the
job market is the ability to be a lifelong learner; this ability is of significant interest to this study,
because lifelong learning is closely connected to the idea of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman,
2000), which is the main construct being examined.
Literature related to the freshman population was also reviewed. Based the data,
freshmen students in college experience both academic and non-academic experiences that
impact their learning and well being. Academically, one of the main areas that students struggle
with is developing effective study habits (Turner & Thompson, 2014). Studies have also shown
that students struggle with developing a sense of belonging, as students develop new social
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 71

networks and adjust to their new surroundings (Malinga-Musamba, 2014; Turner & Thompson,
2014)
Another main topic discussed in this chapter was a discussion on the flipped classroom.
The flipped classroom is a type of blended class, that utilizes an online and face-to-face
pedagogical method to develop students’ knowledge (Gannod, et al., 2008). Unlike typical
blended classes, in flipped classrooms students asynchronously view recorded lectures prior to
entering the classroom, and when attending class students engage in student-centered lessons
(Gannod, et al., 2008).
In addition to conceptualizing the flipped classroom, a discussion on the types of research
that has been completed in relation to the flipped classroom and engineering students was
reviewed in this chapter. Currently, most research has focused on student perceptions of the
flipped classroom (Bishop & Verleger, 2013), and the general findings have been positive (Toto
& Nguyen 2009; Mason, et al., 2013; Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Also, to a lesser degree, studies
have also been completed to examine the effects of the flipped classroom on student achievement
(Toto & Nguyen, 2009; Redekopp & Ragusa, 2013; Gannod et. al., 2008). Of the studies
reviewed, one can generally state that the flipped classroom has been shown to improve student
learning in certain aspects, or at worst, studies have shown that student achievement is not
diminished.
The topic of self-regulated learning was also reviewed in this chapter. Self-regulated
learning refers to a self-directed process that students use in order to develop academic skills
through the use of their mental abilities (Zimmerman, 2002). Based on the literature reviewed,
most models of self-regulated learning occur in three phases: forethought, performance and the
appraisal phase (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001). When understanding self-regulated learning, it
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 72

is generally assumed that: individuals actively participate in the learning process, they can
control parts of the process, that individuals work towards meeting a goal/standard when
learning, and that self-regulated learning processes are mediators between an individual and their
learning (Pintrich, 2004)
In connection to this study’s research questions, a review of similar research was also
discussed. Viewing the flipped classroom as an internet-based instructional method, research has
shown that students utilize a greater variety of self-regulation processes (Whipp & Chiarelli
(2004). In the study completed by Whipp and Chiarelli (2004), the researchers found that
students utilized self-regulation processes commonly used in traditional courses, while also
utilizing self-regulation processes that were specific to the internet-based course. For instance,
students were found to utilize a greater amount of planning strategies and task strategies (Whipp
& Chiarelli, 2004).
In this chapter, social cognitive theory was also introduced as the guiding theory of this
study. In Bandura’s (1986) theory, he explains that behavior is a result of a constant interaction
between one’s own personal factors, the environment and one’s behavior. This constant and
inseparable relationship was termed reciprocal determinism and results in the notion of triadic
reciprocality (Bandura, 1986). In addition to viewing human behavior as a result of triadic
reciprocality, Bandura posited that individuals possessed key cognitive capabilities that impact
human behavior. The cognitive capabilities were identified as: a) being able to utilize symbols,
b) practicing forethought, c) being able to learn vicariously, d) utilizing self-regulatory
mechanisms and e) being able to self-reflect on one’s own knowledge, experiences and
observations which impact agency. A central construct within self-reflection is the idea of self-
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 73

efficacy, which Bandura described as the strongest motivating force behind human agency, due
to its implications on outcome expectations, goal-setting, affect and persistence.
Lastly, Zimmerman’s (2000) model of self-regulated learning was introduced in this
chapter as the guiding framework of this study. The framework has its roots in Bandura’s (1986)
social cognitive theory, and views self-regulated learning as a cyclical process that occurs in
three stages: forethought, performance and self-reaction. Within each stage, Zimmerman
identifies specific processes that occur while an individual is attempting to learn and/or reach a
specific standard. The processes, (task analysis, motivation, self-control, self-observation, self-
judgment, and self-reaction), and how individuals structure their environment and use social
support, are what this study will measure in understanding the research question of this study:
"What self-regulating learning processes do engineering students enrolled in an undergraduate
flipped classroom utilize while learning?"
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 74

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this is study was to examine the types of self-regulated learning behaviors
that engineering students enrolled in a freshman-level flipped classroom engage in while
learning. The goal of the current chapter is to identify the research question of the study, and to
outline the methodology that the study utilized in order to answer the study’s research question.
The research question for the current study was:
"What self-regulating learning processes do engineering students enrolled in an undergraduate
flipped classroom utilize while learning?"
Since the research question relates to the beliefs that students hold and their experiences
while learning, the inquiry was a qualitative study rather than a quantitative study (Maxwell,
2013) and included both interviews and observations. The reason the study was not a
quantitative study was because quantitative studies tend to be more appropriate for research
questions that seek to understand the relationships that occur between variables (Creswell, 2009),
which was not the intent of this study. The following sections will describe the sample and
population of the informants of the study, describe how the study sought out its informants, and
also provide a description of the flipped course which provided the data to answer the study’s
research question.
Sample and Population
The population for this study was comprised of undergraduate students enrolled at a
western university. All data collected was from a top tier private urban research institution
located in the western part of the United States. The total enrollment of the university was
approximately 40,000 students.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 75

The informants of the study consisted of a purposeful sampling of students participating
in a flipped engineering course. The reason the researcher sought out a purposeful sample was
because, as Merriam (2009) describes, purposefully selected individuals are more likely to
provide the most relevant and insightful information to a study. The type of purposeful sampling
that was used in the study was a convenience sampling, due to the researcher’s constraints in
completing the study. To recruit students, the researcher made in-class announcements, and
distributed a recruitment flyer to potential participants during the Fall 2015 semester (see
Appendix A). Snowballing was also a technique used after finding the initial set of participants.
Lastly, to attract a greater number of participants for the study a small incentive was offered to
participants (see Appendix A).
In addition to identifying a sample of students to interview, another aspect of this study
was to obtain observational data. Access to observational data was gained by seeking out
approval from the institution as well as the instructor involved in teaching the flipped
engineering course. Specifically, approval was granted after the researcher made direct e-mail
contact with the instructor, and after holding an in-person meeting to contextualize the purpose
of the study. The following section will describe the instrumentation process of the study.
Instrumentation
In order to complete the study, both semi-structured interviews and observation protocols
were developed to collect data. The reason for the use of semi-structured interviews was to
allow for emerging information to be explored, based on the information collected from
respondents, while also being directed towards specific types of data from the participating
informants, which were relevant to the goals of the study (Merriam, 2009). The reason for not
utilizing structured interviews was that, although they can provide a format and could allow for
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 76

greater constancy, and thus credibility and transferability in the findings, the researcher believed
that the structured interviews would limit the scope of information obtained from informants
because of the rigidity of the format (Merriam, 2009).
In addition to semi-structured interviews, data was collected through the use of
observation protocols. The use of observation protocols was thought to be an essential element
to this study since the data can be used not only to capture any elements missed during the
interview process, but also to strengthen the reliability and validity of the data collected from the
semi-structured interviews (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). Also, observations were conducted
because researchers have found that self-reports could be inaccurate, and observations could be
used as a method of measuring the accuracy of self-reports made by individuals (Winters,
Greene, & Costich 2008). Winters, Greene, and Costich (2008) also discuss the value of
observations since most studies on self-regulated learning collect data primarily through
interviews, and by conducting observations, this study could potentially add to the research
literature as it relates to self-regulated learning.
For the study, both the interview and observation protocols were developed by the
researcher. Due to the nature of the interview protocol being researcher-created, each question
was developed after a series of drafting and refinement. The purpose of revising the questions
was to maximize the possibility of obtaining the type of information that the study sought to
understand. Additionally, each interview question and probing question was strategically
developed in order to align with the processes of self-regulated learning described by
Zimmerman (2000): forethought phase (task analysis and motivation), performance phase (self-
control and self-observation), self-reflection (self-judgment and self-reaction), environmental
structuring, and social support (see Appendix B). Some sample questions asked during
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 77

interviews were: "Could you describe the goals you set for yourself prior to starting the flipped
course?" and "Could you describe the specific plans you made to help you succeed in the flipped
course?" The interview protocol that was utilized for this study was also developed by adhering
to the suggestions described by Merriam (2009), which provided the researcher with some
guidelines in creating effective interview questions.
In developing the observational protocol of the study, a descriptive approach was used
(Merriam, 2009) so that the data captured during observations could be as information rich as
possible (see Appendix C). A key feature of the observation protocol was that eight sections
were included, highlighting the specific self-regulated learning strategies that the study sought to
identify while students were engaged in the learning process (see Appendix C). The eight
sections were also developed to support the researcher’s ability to focus on the specific types of
information to collect so that the research question could be understood and answered.
Data Collection
All of the data was collected from a single freshman-level civil engineering course, which
met twice a week for 50 minutes. The course was a requirement for all students pursuing a civil
engineering degree. The course was led by an engineering faculty member, and two teaching
assistants. A total of 27 students, 11 female and 16 male, were enrolled in the course. The
physical setting of the classroom could be described as a traditional setting, in which students sat
in rows, and the instructor had a podium from which to lecture. To accommodate the flipped
pedagogy, the students sat in moveable chairs that allowed for students to sit independently or in
small groups.
The purpose of the course was to introduce to students the field of civil engineering and
its various sub-disciplines. Furthermore, the intention of the course was to introduce the design,
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 78

modeling, analysis and simulation of certain systems dependent upon civil engineering
technology. In conjunction with the primary intentions of the course, its purpose was to discuss
the ethics of civil engineering, and to emphasize and promote strong communication skills.
The format of the course aligned with traditional flipped classrooms found in the
literature (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Roach, 2014). Prior to entering the classroom, students
were expected to view pre-recorded slideshows through Blackboard, a learning management
system utilized by the institution. When viewing the slideshows, students could manipulate the
slideshow to pause, skip and replay segments of the recording as desired. During the face-to-
face component of the class, students were given a weekly assessment of the materials covered in
the course, upon which students were given the opportunity to clarify their understandings. After
the assessment, the instructor provided instruction on the day’s task, and students would then
work collaboratively in small groups of two to five students to complete the day’s lesson.
Profile of Participants in the Study
In total, seven out of the 27 students enrolled in the civil engineering course participated
in the study. The following will provide a brief description of each participant of the study:
Participant 1: Andrew is currently in his first year in the university. He is from Hawaii
and has chosen to attend the institution because of his interest in the school’s engineering
program. Currently, he is unsure of exactly what sub-discipline he would like to pursue.
Participant 2: Stephanie is currently a first year student at the university. She is
originally from China. In addition to pursuing her degree in civil engineering, she has interest in
pursuing a medical degree. However, she is unsure if she would like to invest the time required
to become a physician.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 79

Participant 3: John is currently in his first year at the university. He is originally from
New Mexico. His current intention is to complete his civil engineering degree and pursue a
career within the field. However, he is uncertain of exactly which sub-field of civil engineering
he would like to pursue.
Participant 4: Mike is currently in his senior year at the university. He is a double major
student, majoring in piano and, within the last year, has decided to also major in civil
engineering. He is not fully sure which sub-field he would like to pursue at this time.
Participant 5: Jennifer is currently double majoring in music and engineering. She is in
her first year of college. Currently, she is not sure of which sub-discipline of civil engineering
she would like to pursue.
Participant 6: Leo is currently in his first year of college. He is originally from Southern
California. He is currently majoring in civil engineering, however, he is considering pursuing a
degree in law.
Participant 7: Samantha is in her junior year. She transferred from a two year college.
She is pursuing a degree in civil engineering. She is currently unsure of exactly which sub-
discipline of civil engineering she would like to pursue.
Observational Data Collection
In addition to completing interview protocols with students, two observations were
completed within the same course that all participants were enrolled in. Each observation lasted
the entirety of the class session (50 minutes). The value of completing observation protocols was
for validity and reliability purposes, especially given the fact that researchers have found that
self-reported data may not be accurate (Winters, Greene & Costich 2008).

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 80

Privacy and Protection of Participants of the Study
To ensure the privacy and protection of the individuals participating in this study, an
information fact sheet was distributed to participants (see Appendix D). Within the document
there were explanations of: a) the purpose of this study, b) the voluntary nature of the study, d) a
description of the compensation given to individuals for participating in the study, e) an
explanation to the informants that they would be given pseudonyms, and f) that the data would
only be accessed by the individuals working on the dissertation and to the institution’s Human
Subjects Protection Program, if needed.
Data Analysis
Since the research questions for this study were qualitative in nature, data analysis for
this study focused on collecting multiple interviews and observations so that a thick description
could be made in relation to the goals of this study. The thick description from recorded
interviews was transcribed using mTurk, which is a crowdsourcing marketplace in which
individuals complete specific tasks. Afterwards, the interview transcriptions were analyzed
following Merriam’s (2009) steps for qualitative analysis; in doing so, all transcripts were
analyzed throughly and then coded for themes to match Zimmerman’s (2002) framework.
Afterwards, the themes were further disaggregated into more specific categories. Furthermore,
data was coded to analyze how students structured their environments and utilized their social
surroundings to learn. Based on the study’s findings, an ordinal ranking of the most common
themes of each self-regulation process was created. Lastly, the transcripts were coded to find
any additional emerging themes that were not related to the study’s research question.
In addition to analyzing data through interviews, data from observations were collected
and analyzed. Like the interviews, data from observations was collected over multiple
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 81

observations so that a greater amount of data could be collected to create a thick description of
events. The coding process for the observation protocols aligned with the methods used for
analyzing the interview data, with the exception of transcribing the data.
Chapter Three Summary
The research question for the study was: "What self-regulating learning processes do
engineering students enrolled in an undergraduate flipped classroom utilize while learning?" In
order to answer the question, the investigator completed a qualitative study, utilizing both
interview and observational protocols. Through the use of recruitment, purposeful sampling and
with approval from the university site, the researcher collected information from undergraduate
students enrolled at an elite private university. All participants of the study were enrolled in a
required freshman-level course, which utilized the flipped classroom approach.
A total of seven out of 27 students enrolled in the course were interviewed, and two
observations were completed. Upon collecting the interview and observational data, Merriam’s
(2009) suggestions for analyzing qualitative data were applied. Interview information was
transcribed, coded for recurring and emerging themes and organized according to Zimmerman’s
framework (2002), along with coding for how students structured their environment and utilized
their social surroundings when learning. The coded information was further analyzed to
disaggregate larger themes into smaller more concise themes. Findings were then organized by
ordinal ranking. Observational data was coded using a similar process, with the exception of
transcribing the data. The observational data was primarily used to support the data collected
from interviews. Findings not related to the study’s research questions was also coded, after
completing the coding process to answer the study’s research question. To ensure the privacy of
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 82

all participants in the study, no real names were used in the study. Furthermore, all collected
data was stored in a personal laptop with an encrypted hard drive.
The next chapter will review the findings of the study.

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 83

Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this chapter is to answer the research question of the study, and to present
the additional themes that were found after analyzing the data collected by the researcher. The
research question of the study was: "What self-regulating learning processes do engineering stu-
dents enrolled in an undergraduate flipped classroom utilize while learning?" To answer the re-
search question, data was collected from seven interviews and two observations. Prior to ex-
plaining the results of the study, a brief description of each participant will be discussed, in order
to add to the descriptive nature of the study.
Participants
To complete the study, data was collected from seven students participating in a manda-
tory freshman-level flipped engineering course during the fall semester of the 2015-2016 aca-
demic year. A brief profile of each interviewee is provided below:
Participant 1: Andrew is currently in his first year at the university. He is from Hawaii
and has chosen to attend the institution because of his interest in the school’s engineering pro-
gram. Currently, he is unsure of exactly what sub-discipline he would like to pursue.
Participant 2: Stephanie is currently a first year student at the university. She is original-
ly from China. In addition to pursuing her degree in civil engineering, she has interest in pursu-
ing a medical degree. However, she is unsure if she wants to invest the time required to become
a physician.
Participant 3: John is currently in his first year at the university. He is originally from
New Mexico. His current intention is to complete his civil engineering degree and pursue a ca-
reer within the field. However, he is uncertain of exactly which sub-field of civil engineering he
would like to pursue.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 84

Participant 4: Mike is currently in his senior year at the university. He is a double major
student, majoring in piano and, within the last year, has decided to also major in civil engineer-
ing. He is not fully sure which sub-field he would like to pursue at this time.
Participant 5: Jennifer is currently double majoring in music and engineering. She is in
her first year of college. Currently, she is not sure of which sub-discipline of civil she would like
to pursue.
Participant 6: Leo is currently in his first year of college. He is originally from Southern
California. He is currently majoring in civil engineering; however, he is thinking of pursuing a
degree in law.
Participant 7: Samantha is in her third year at the university. She transferred from a jun-
ior college. She is pursuing a degree in civil engineering. She is currently unsure of exactly
which sub-discipline of civil engineering she would like to pursue.
Results of Students’ Self-Regulation Processes
The research question for the study was: "What self-regulating learning processes do en-
gineering students enrolled in an undergraduate flipped course utilize while learning?" The pur-
pose of developing the research question was to add to the breadth of research related to the
flipped classroom, which has primarily focused on student perceptions and the impact that the
flipped classroom has on student achievement (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Data was analyzed
using Zimmerman’s model of self-regulation (2002), and social cognitive theory (1986), to ex-
amine how students utilized forethought, performance, and self-reflection processes while learn-
ing. Data was also collected to understand how students structured their environment and uti-
lized their social supports while learning.

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 85

Forethought Phase — Use of Task Analysis and Self-Motivation
Table 1
Forethought Phase Findings
Task-Analysis Frequency Self-Motivation Frequency
No findings Outcome Expecta-
tions
4
Intrinsic Interest 3
Utilitarian Value 1
In relation to task-analysis, no findings were identified based on interview data. Fur-
thermore, data collected from the two observations did not support any emerging themes in rela-
tion to task-analysis. In the first observational protocol, 20 students were observed in the class-
room (14 males and six females). Throughout the majority of the observation, students sat in
small rows while listening to the instructor review content from the previous lesson, then listened
to the instructor lead a lecture on the Bernoulli equation. Due to the heavy emphasis on the in-
structor delivering content through the use of lecture, students may not have had the opportunity
to task-analyze since they did not have sufficient time to collaborate before they were expected
to apply the Brounoulli equation.
The second protocol completed by the researcher also did not yield any findings in rela-
tion to task-analysis. During the second observational protocol, 23 students (15 males and eight
females) were observed completing a quiz at the start of the class, which lasted approximately 10
minutes. Upon completing the quiz, students were asked to collaborate with the instructor to
solve a “turbine problem". After completing the problem, students were given a brief lecture on
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 86

the day’s topic, and they were asked to follow the lead of the instructor in solving sample prob-
lems that revolved around fluid mechanics and the use of the Moody diagram. During approxi-
mately the last 15 minutes of the course, students worked collaboratively, in groups of three to
five, in order to solve loss coefficient, while the instructor of the course facilitated the students’
learning. Throughout the second observation, no instances of students applying task-analysis
strategies were identified.
In relation to the second aspect of the forethought phase, the most common form of self-
motivation utilized by participants in the study was related to outcome expectations. Students
were motivated by the idea of earning the highest grade possible by the end of the course, as
Mike demonstrated in the following exchange, when discussing the variables that motived him to
learn.
Researcher: "Okay. Before starting the class, did you have any specific goals in mind?"
Mike: "In terms, in terms of just this specific class?"
Researcher: "Just this specific class."
Mike: "I didn't really know what to expect. Like I said, I switched over from a com-
pletely different major, piano, and so, this is one of my first, this is technically my first civil en-
gineering class, so I didn't really know what to expect. Compared to the other courses I'm tak-
ing, it's sort of softball, in my opinion, so..."
Researcher: "Okay. Did you have any motivating factors to do well in this course?"
Mike: "I mean, I shoot to always get A’s and my grade point average is almost 4.0, so
the goal is to come out of this with a 4.0, with an A."
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 87

The second most common theme to emerge from the interviews, related to self-
motivation, was intrinsic interest. Students with an intrinsic interest in their learning commonly
shared the sentiment described by Stephanie in the following exchange.
Researcher: “Okay. So, before starting the class, did you have any, like, specific goals
that you set for yourself?”
Stephanie: “For this class particularly? Well, I was hoping, like, after this class, since
this is like an intro civil engineering class, so they kind of expose you to all the different, like,
sub-fields within civil engineering, I was hoping, like, I'd get more of a sense on which direction
I want to go into. So, I think that's like my main goal out of this class.”
Researcher: “Okay. Did you have any other, like, outside factors that motivated you to
do really well, aside from kind of figuring out potentially what? 'cause what I'm hearing is
you're, you wanted to kind of be exposed to the different sub-fields to possibly pursue?”
Stephanie: “'Cause I don't really know like a whole lot about it, and I think, like, this
class does a really good job at just exposing you to, like, all the different fields, like, water re-
sources, construction, all the other fields.”
Students that shared the Stephanie's intrinsic interest continuously sought to do well in
the course so that they could ultimately get a better idea of the various sub-fields of civil engi-
neering. Furthermore, students who shared this sentiment of Stephanie's believed that they
would have a better idea of the career path that they would like to pursue if they grasped the
knowledge/skills covered in the course.
The third most common theme to emerge from the interviews was the idea that students
were motivated to learn because of the utilitarian value. Students motivated by the utilitarian
value of the course desired to optimally engage in their coursework because they believed that
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 88

the knowledge and skills gained from the course would be useful in future contexts. This finding
is illustrated in the following exchange with John.
Researcher: "Ok, aside from getting exposure to that, did you have any other goals with the
course?"
John: "I was thinking maybe getting to the basics of the actual mathematics and stuff that we
will get into in the later/future years that I will need as an engineer."
In relation to self-motivation, the data collected from the two observations did not sup-
port, nor discredit, the findings about self-motivation. Ultimately, self-motivation could not be
identified during the observations.
Performance Phase — Use of Self-Control and Self-Observation
Table 2
Performance Phase Findings
Self-Control Frequency Self-Observation Frequency
Note Taking 7 No findings
Attention Focusing 3
Based on the data collected from the interviews and observations, students enrolled in the
civil engineering course predominately utilized the self-control strategy of note taking followed
by attention focusing strategies. Since the course utilized the flipped method, students appreciat-
ed the fact that they could manipulate the pre-recorded slideshows and document what were per-
ceived to be the most significant aspects of each lesson, as Samantha stated in the following ex-
change.
Researcher: “How about like the video, video component because I believe it was Pow-
erPoint slides that were shown and she narrates over.”
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 89

Samantha: “Yeah.”
Researcher: “Is that how it was?”
Samantha: “Yeah, the videos were exactly pretty much like that, just PowerPoint slides
and she would talk over them. Um, there were like one or two where she would kind of like, put
a video of herself in there just to—just talking or drawing something to give a visual aid.”
Researcher: “Okay, a topic was introduced in the PowerPoint or in the video aspect of
the class. Was there anything you’d do if you didn’t understand something that was being intro-
duced?”
Samantha: “Um, if anything, I would always pause the video, take notes. Um, if I
didn’t—if I missed something or didn’t quite understand something, I would just be able to re-
wind it and re-watch it. There was never anything that I felt like I had to Google or look up, um,
but if there was something that I was just like, I have no idea what this means, I would just
Google, most likely.”
When conducting observations of students learning within the classroom, note taking was
the most prominent task strategy being used by students in both observations. For instance, in
the first observation, at least 12 out of 20 students in the classroom were observed taking notes
while the instructor introduced the Bernoulli equation to the class. In the second observation, out
of the 23 students present, most students were observed taking notes.
Students also stated that they would frequently utilize attention focusing strategies by
slowly processing the content of the videos and replaying segments as necessary in order to
grasp important content. Informants would state a message similar to Stephanie's in the follow-
ing exchange.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 90

Researcher: “Okay, okay. So, when you're learning a new concept, like for me, when I
was observing your second class, like, that was completely like almost like a foreign language to
me, because my education has been all in the social sciences and education fields. When you're
introduced to a new topic, like I'm assuming this past Wednesday, the topic was relatively new
for you, or possibly covered in the video, how would you, what were some strategies that you
would use to make sure that you understood the content?”
Stephanie: “On my own?”
Researcher: “Yeah, on your own.”
Stephanie: “Like, through the video that we were assigned for homework? I guess, like,
er... like, watching the video slowly, and then, like, going back to the parts and just like re-
watching, especially those, like, content or parts that, like, you didn't understand very well. I
think that helps a lot, and taking notes also.”
In relation to the self-observation aspect of the performance phase, there were no signifi-
cant findings in either the interviews or the observations.
Self-Reflection Phase — Self-Judgment and Self-Reaction
Table 3
Self-reflection Phase Findings:
Self-judgment Frequency Self-reaction Frequency
No findings No findings
In the current study, when students were asked questions that related to self-judgment,
there were no specific comments made about self-judging their learning and/or progress. Addi-
tionally, in both observations that the researcher completed, no instances occurred.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 91

In relation to the self-regulation process of self-reaction, there were no specific comments
made that illustrated students’ self-reaction towards their learning. Furthermore, in both obser-
vations completed by the researcher, only two instances were documented in which students
asked clarifying questions to the instructor. In the first observation, no student was observed
asking questions to the instructor. In the second observation, two students were observed asking
clarifying questions related to the day’s activity around the topic of loss coefficient, when it was
time to collaborate with their peers to solve a problem-based task. Due to the limited frequency
in which students asked clarifying questions, the researcher did not include the strategy in the
findings.
Environmental Structuring
Table 4
Environmental Structuring Findings
Environmental Structuring Frequency
Library 3
Listen to Music in Dorm 2
Clear Study Space 2
In addition to the findings related to Zimmerman’s (2001) model of self-regulation, an
additional purpose of the study was to examine how students structured their environment while
learning. From the qualitative data collected, the most common method of environmental struc-
turing utilized by students was the utilization of an environment that had a minimal number of
distractions, which was studying in the library. As Jennifer stated, when asked how she struc-
tures her environment when studying:
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 92

I always study, and it's kind of a library. It's called King's Hall. It's right next to my resi-
dential tower. I study everything there, so generally, I just bring my laptop and earphones
and take notes and study there. I don't technically manipulate my surroundings, but at the
same time, I'm not sitting around a whole bunch of people talking or watching, so it's not
distracting. It's like a working environment.
In addition to students most commonly studying in the library, Andrew and John indicat-
ed that they simply studied within their dorm room while listening to music. John describes his
approach in the following exchange.
Researcher: "Ok, when you were learning on your own through watching the videos or
studying by yourself before class, how would you structure your environment or what would the
ideal environment be for you?"
John: "When I'm doing the homework I like to relax, listen to calm music to help me, but
when I'm studying, no noise at all because that distracts me."
Researcher: "So, to study is there a place you go to study?"
John: "I just study in my dorm room. I can't study outside anywhere else even in librar-
ies, which is kind of ironic, but I can't study anywhere else."
The use of the library and dorm room were not the only ways students structured their
environment. Jennifer and Mike also described how they would simply need a large working
area that is cleared so that they could study. As Mike mentioned:
I like to work, I usually work alone, in terms of that. I like to have a good amount of
space, not feel cramped or feel watched or anything, so that's for when I'm studying. But
if, but study groups also are good when that's not okay. That hasn't at all been necessary
in this course, though.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 93

Social Support
Table 5
Social Support Findings
Social Support Frequency
Instructors 4
Friends 2
General Peers 2
After completing the interviews and analyzing the findings, the most common theme to
emerge in relation to social support was that students were most inclined to seek support from
the instructors of the class (teacher and/or teacher’s assistants) that were leading the class. For
instance, when Leo was asked who he would seek support from, he replied, “The teacher’s as-
sistants were there, they just, we’d ask them questions and they’d answer, or the instructor, and
we just asked her.”
The data collected from the observations appears to have supported the idea that students
would primarily seek out the instructors for support. In the two observations completed, two in-
stances were recorded in which students asked the instructor clarifying questions related to the
day’s activities.
The second most common theme to emerge from the data, was that students would utilize
their peers within the course for additional support, as John stated:
“I asked my roommate because he's also in the same course, so we would help each other, but
other than that, I haven't really struggled understanding the content after she goes through exam-
ples so I haven't really needed to go.”
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 94

The third most common theme to emerge was that students would seek support from their
general peers when working in groups during lessons while in class. When Mike was asked if
the he ever sought out social support, he stated, “Well, in class, we work, we do group problems,
so we work together, but beyond that, there's really not been any need.”
The finding that students would rely on each other during class time is not surprising,
given the collaborative nature of the flipped classroom. The observational data, however, did not
confirm the idea that students would seek out their peers for support. However, the lack of ob-
servational data may be due to the limited number of observations that the researcher could com-
plete.
Additional Emerging Themes
The primary intent of the study was to understand the self-regulation processes of stu-
dents participating in an undergraduate engineering course utilizing the flipped classroom ap-
proach. However, upon analyzing the data collected, there were four additional themes that
emerged from the study. The following will describe: how students’ self-regulation processes
compared to that of their classes that utilized the traditional approach, b) students’ perceptions of
the flipped classroom approach, c) an emerging theme that highlights the importance of rigor in
courses, and d) a theme that related to the limited amount of best practices observed in the
flipped classroom.
Self-regulation Versus the Traditional Classroom
The findings on self-regulation and the flipped classroom cannot be meaningful unless
there can be a comparison made with how students regulate their learning in their courses that
utilize the traditional approach. The need for a comparison is to develop an understanding of
whether or not the flipped classroom impacts students’ self-regulation processes. Based on the
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 95

findings of the study, six out of seven students were asked a question related to how their self-
regulation may have differed in their traditional courses. Three students, (Andrew, John and
Samantha), stated that their self-regulation processes did not differ. In the following exchange
with Andrew, one can get a glimpse into how differently he would study versus a traditional
course.
Researcher: “Okay. Comparing your flipped engineering class to your other classes,
which I assume are more traditional, like, do they post videos and things like that ?“
Andrew: “No.”
Researcher: “Okay, in the traditional class, is the style you learn any different in terms
of, like, the strategies that you use, your friends that you might ask questions, or your professors,
or TAs, things like that?”
Andrew: “It's not that much different. I think, it's mostly the same system where you just,
like, lecture during class and there's maybe some discussion sections, and then, but, yeah, I go to
my friends for help and then, if I have trouble after that, I go to the TAs or SIs or the professors.”
The researcher’s exchange with John further reiterated the findings that the students did
not have different self-regulation process while learning, as demonstrated in the following ex-
change.
Researcher: “Would you say your um, approach to learning at least with the flipped en-
gineering course is any different than your non-flipped classes if you are taking any non-flipped
classes?"
John: "Like, I feel like I do learn with it but not from the videos."
Researcher: "So like, your strategies to learning and things like that are pretty consistent
from this class to some of your other engineering courses?”
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 96

John: "Yes and all of my other courses, too. And the classes that I do best in are when
the teacher actually interacts and tries different methods of teaching and learning in the class-
room, but not with videos.”
Two students, (Mike and Jennifer), commented that their self-regulation processes would
have differed, if the rigor of the course was higher. The significance of Mike’s and Jennifer’s
comments, however, was that their self-regulation was tied to the rigor of the course (which will
be further discussed in the following section), and not the actual flipped pedagogy. For instance,
there was the following exchange with Jennifer.
Researcher: “So, if you're going to compare this course to a traditional course, would
you say there are any major differences in your approach to learning the content, understanding
the content?”
Jennifer: "I mean, I can compare it to the calculus class I'm in right now, which in some
ways is a lot more structured, and in some ways, a bit less. It's less structured because we do
have homework every week, but it's never due, and so, a lot of people don't do the homework.
But, it's more structured in that we have quizzes every Thursday over the material that the
homework is over. And so, I always do the homework for that class. It's, I would say it's kind of
different in how I learn it, because I feel the pressure to learn that there is a quiz. I always do the
homework, whereas, for this class, I do feel the pressure but I feel like it's a bit more laid back.”
Lastly, Leo did not interpret the question correctly, and thus a conclusion could not be
made in terms of whether or not Leo applied different self-regulation processes in the flipped
classroom versus his courses that utilized the traditional classroom approach. Ultimately, based
on the reports from students participating in the current study, one could conclude that the
flipped classroom did not impact the self-regulation processes of students.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 97

Rigor of the Course and Its Impact on Self-regulation
An additional theme to emerge from completing the interviews was that when students
were asked questions related to the performance and self-reflection phase of Zimmerman’s
(2002) self-regulation model, students often stated that they did not need to utilize processes
and/or skills related to the phases simply because the structure of the class did not warrant such
efforts. When Andrew was discussing his self-awareness of being proficient in the knowledge
and skills that would be required prior to class assessments, he stated:
I just went through the video online one time, and then I took notes on the slideshow, so I
felt like I had a pretty good understanding, and then, the quiz is open-note, so we get to
use our notes, so yeah, I can, like, rely on that.
When discussing the same topic of preparedness prior to an assessment, Mike replied:
The issue with the videos in my mind is that the quizzes are pretty straightforward, and
so, since they're open-note, you can do well on the quiz by just essentially copying down
what it presented in the video, and so, when you have a full schedule of other courses,
you don't necessarily take the time to learn, and I, so, I haven't really been working on
making sure I understand the concept, and I think that the fact that these are really simpli-
fied equations and a lot of factors are just assumed to be simplified, that also doesn't en-
courage me to go out and try and understand it more myself, because if there was a factor
that wasn't simplified and I didn't understand it, but, so, I don't think that encourages that.
The feeling of students not needing to closely monitor or regulate their learning was a
continuing theme throughout the interviews. Out of the seven students interviewed, a total of
four students commented that the format of the course (i.e. use of open notes and simplicity of
concepts) did not encourage the students to examine their own performance. The lack of rigor
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 98

may have been the reason why there were no findings of students utilizing self-reflection strate-
gies.
Student Perceptions of the Flipped Classroom
Of the seven participants, five students commented on their perceptions of the flipped
classroom based on their experiences. Overall, students’ perceptions were mixed. Three stu-
dents, Andrew, Stephanie, and Mike, viewed the flipped classroom positively, primarily because
students could receive important materials through lecture, while also having time to apply the
concepts that they learned. As Andrew stated:
Yeah, so I liked the flipped classroom structure. It's pretty, I think it's pretty good because
you get a little bit of lecture in beginning, and then you get to apply the concepts, and if
you have questions on the concepts that maybe you didn't have before during a lecture,
you could ask the professor or a TA, so that would really help, like, learn, actually doing
the process by yourself. If you have any questions, you can go to the people for help.
Stephanie reinforced the comments made by Andrew. When Stephanie was asked about
her thoughts on the instructor’s teaching style, she stated:
Well, I like that, I feel like the lectures she gives, they're, like, they're kind of, like, need-
ed, like for us to really learn the material, 'cause like, as far as, what we're currently doing
is learning how to calculate, like, flow velocity for, like, concrete dams, so that's not like
really something where you could integrate a interactive approach really. So I feel like a
lecture is sort of necessary, but I also like how she adds, like, the whole group work com-
ponent to it, so I, I like the flipped classroom style.
Two students, Jennifer and John, however, did not have positive experiences with the
flipped classroom. Both Jennifer and John stated that their negative experiences were related to
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 99

the slideshow content of the course. Specifically, they did not believe that the slideshows were
effective in explaining topics and instead were confusing. When asked how John learned while
viewing the videos, he stated that:
I don't really learn that well through videos and stuff like that. I mean I'm a visual learn-
er. I'm more of a visual learner with examples and then giving us a theory, and the vide-
os they would just introduce the formulas. There would be no more depth of information
with them, so all I would pretty much do is copy the notes down for the quiz.
Deviation from Flipped Classroom Pedagogy
Lastly, an emerging theme that presented itself when analyzing the data was that the en-
gineering course being examined did not fully adhere to the descriptions and best practices of a
flipped classroom, as described in the literature (Estes & Ingram, 2014; Milman, 2012; Miller,
2012). After completing the two observations and collecting data from students, it is believed
that the instructor did not properly apply the flipped classroom approach. Specifically, the in-
structor would routinely lecture students more than what a flipped classroom theoretically should
allow for. For instance, in one observation the instructor lectured to students for approximately
40 minutes before allowing students to work in small groups to solve an engineering problem
around the Bernoulli equation. In a subsequent observation, the instructor lectured students for
approximately 35 minutes, prior to allowing students work collaboratively in groups of three to
five students. Comments from students such as Leo supported the observation in the following
exchange.
Researcher: “Would you say that’s a pretty accurate description for this class as well, or
it’s a little bit more traditional?”
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 100

Leo: “A little bit of traditional, but I’ve seen where she wants to do the actual group and
solving and application.”
Researcher: “Mm-hm.”
Leo: “Of our ideas.”
Researcher: “If you were to split it up percentage-wise, would you say it’s like 50/50 lec-
ture?”
Leo: “Lecture I would say, I would say 70 and then the rest 30.”
Researcher: “Mm-hm, 30, okay.”
Leo: “But it’s not, it doesn’t seem to be her intention. She intends to cut it short. Some-
times it doesn’t work.”
Chapter Four Summary
The purpose of the current study was to answer the following research question: "What
self-regulating learning processes do engineering students enrolled in an undergraduate flipped
course utilize while learning?" To answer the study’s research question, the study’s investigator
conducted seven interviews and two observations at a private urban university, located in the
western United States. While utilizing Zimmerman’s (2002) self-regulation model and Ban-
dura’s (1986) social cognitive theory as a framework for the study, the researcher found that stu-
dents utilize a variety of self-regulation processes while they learn (see Appendix F). Upon the
completion of both semi-structured interviews and observations, students were found to utilize
grades as the top motivating factor, followed by intrinsic interest, and the utilitarian value of
learning the content, during the forethought phase of self-regulation. During the performance
phase of self-regulation, students were found to utilize note-taking strategies most frequently,
followed by attention focusing strategies. During the self-reflection phase, no specific skills
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 101

were utilized. In relation to the environmental structuring, students were most frequently found
to engage in their learning within a quiet learning area (e.g. library), followed by listening to mu-
sic while learning, and simply having a clear space to study in. Lastly, in relation to social sup-
port, students were found to most frequently utilize their instructors, followed by friends and
their general peers when working in groups.
In addition to the primary findings of the study, there were four emerging themes that
were identified. One additional finding was that students’ self-regulation behaviors were not dif-
ferent from that used in their non-flipped classrooms. A second additional finding was that stu-
dents had mixed perceptions of the flipped course, with some students appreciating the benefit of
being able to apply their knowledge and skills in class, and also being able to obtain information
through lectures. Some students, however, did not have positive perceptions of the flipped class-
room, stating that they did not benefit from the slideshow materials and instead found them to
provide no support for their learning. Furthermore, the researcher found that although the in-
structor of the course under observation was attempting to properly apply the flipped classroom
approach, in actuality, the course was likely utilizing practices that are not consistent with an
ideal flipped classroom (Estes & Ingram, 2014; Milman, 2012; Miller, 2012). Specifically, the
instructor was lecturing more than a flipped classroom should necessitate.
In the next chapter, a discussion of the findings will be reviewed, along with the limita-
tions of the study, the study’s implications for practice, and suggestions for future research.

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 102

Chapter Five: Discussion
The current study was completed in response to the need for more research related to
flipped classrooms (Bishop & Verleger, 2013), which has primarily focused on student percep-
tions and student achievement. To broaden the research base, the idea of self-regulated learning
in the context of the flipped classroom was examined, using Zimmerman’s (2002) self-regulation
model and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). The research question for the study was:
"What self-regulating learning processes do engineering students enrolled in an undergraduate
flipped course utilize while learning?" To complete the study, a qualitative research design was
created, collecting data from interviews and observations. The research took place at an elite
private school, located in the western United States. All informants of the study were enrolled in
the same freshman-level civil engineering course. Observational data was also collected from
the same course. The current chapter will discuss the study’s findings, limitations, implications
of practice and make suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings
Upon completing the study, students were found to utilize a variety of self-regulating
processes (see Appendix E). However, students were also found to have gaps in their self-
regulation. Based on the data collected, the greatest area in which students did not utilize self-
regulation processes occurred during the self-reflection phase. The finding is consistent with the
data that researchers have collected, especially when taking into account that the primary popula-
tion of informants was comprised of freshmen students. Researchers have found that freshmen
students struggle with utilizing effective learning strategies, as they transition into college
(Turner & Thompson, 2014). The finding is also consistent with data collected on how develop-
ing students self-regulate themselves versus experts. Zimmerman (2002) states that developing
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 103

students, such as the informants of the study, have poor self-regulation because they often be-
have in a reactive manner while learning, whereas experts often utilize a more purposeful and
directed approach towards learning.
In addition to the primary findings of the study, four unintended findings also emerged.
One additional theme was that students’ self-regulation processes did not differ between the
flipped engineering course and their courses that utilized the traditional approach. The signifi-
cance of the finding is that the flipped classroom did not impact students’ self-regulation pro-
cesses. Instead, based on the findings, students appear to have learned in the same manner in
both the flipped and traditional classrooms. Viewing the flipped classroom as an internet-based
class, the finding contrasts to what researchers have found. Unlike the current study, researchers
(Whipp & Chiarelli, 2014) have found that students utilize a wider range of self-regulation pro-
cesses when participating in internet-based courses, while having more opportunities to self-
regulate their learning (Lee & Tsai, 2011).
A second additional finding to emerge from the study was that students did not view the
flipped engineering course to be rigorous enough to warrant certain self-regulation processes,
since the students could utilize their notes when taking assessments. Students repeatedly identi-
fied their ability to utilize their notes during assessments and the simplicity of the mathematical
concepts as reasons why they did not fully assess their own learning nor self-reflect while learn-
ing. The finding is consistent with effort mobilization theory, and the idea that students did not
have to utilize and/or adapt their self-regulatory processes because the demands of the course
were not high enough to warrant such behaviors (Koole, Jostmann, & Baumann, 2012). The
finding also illustrates the importance of utilizing the best practices associated with implement-
ing the flipped classroom (Estes & Ingram, 2014; Milman, 2012; Miller, 2012).
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 104

A third additional finding was that students had mixed perceptions of the flipped class-
room experience. Some students appreciated the fact that the flipped classroom approach uti-
lized lecture materials, while also giving students the opportunity to apply their knowledge
through student-centered activities. Some students, however, held negative perceptions of the
flipped classroom. Specifically, students that did not perceive the flipped classroom positively
had trouble understanding the concepts covered in the slideshow recordings, which were viewed
prior to entering the classroom. Students with negative perceptions believed that the recordings
were confusing and did not support their learning. The mixed perceptions that students held to-
wards the flipped classroom were consistent with prior findings (Strayer, 2012).
Lastly, a final theme to emerge in the study was that the flipped classroom under observa-
tion did not implement the best practices (Estes & Ingram, 2014; Milman, 2012; Miller, 2012)
associated with the flipped classroom. Upon collecting interviews and observational data, the
use of lecture was found to dominate classroom activities, rather than student-centered activities.
The inability to implement the best practices associated with flipped learning is not a new theme,
based on prior research (Strayer, 2012). Qualitative data collected from students participating in
the flipped classroom has shown that instructors struggle with managing the various aspects that
are required to lead an effective flipped classroom (Strayer, 2012).
Limitations
Although the findings of the study support the efforts to broaden existing research related
the flipped classroom, the study contained various limitations. The first limitation of the study
was its limited sample size. The sample size of the current study was seven students which is
likely not a large enough sample to achieve a high level saturation, although the class being ex-
amined consisted of only 27 students. A greater number of interviews could possibly have led to
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 105

differing emerging themes during the interview and coding process, and ultimately a different set
of findings.
A second limitation to the study was that all of its participants were enrolled in the same
course. All of the informants were enrolled in a required undergraduate civil engineering class.
Similar to the potential effects of a limited sample size, by interviewing students enrolled in the
same course, one could state that the findings were not representative of a larger student popula-
tion, and the variations that may exist within a larger group of students.
A third limitation of the study was that the engineering course in which the informants
participated did not fully utilize the flipped classroom model. Instead, approximately half the
course material was flipped. Ultimately, the findings of the study may have differed if the partic-
ipants had engaged in a fully flipped course for the full duration of the course.
Another limitation of the study was that the study primarily utilized findings from self-
reports. Although one would like to believe that the information that is gathered from informants
is fully accurate, researchers have found that self-reports are not always accurate (Winters,
Greene & Costich 2008).
A fifth limitation of the study was the interview protocol. To improve the findings of the
current study, and possibly future studies, the investigator could have utilized a stronger inter-
view protocol. A protocol with a better set of developed questions could have led to the emer-
gence of alternative findings.
Lastly, the researcher himself could have been a limitation to the study, simply by bring-
ing his own preconceived ideas to the study and/or by unknowingly impacting the students that
he was observing and interviewing through the data collection process.

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 106

Implications for Practice
The current study can potentially have significant implications for stakeholders who im-
plement the flipped classroom as a form of instruction for undergraduate engineering students.
Although there are numerous ways of interpreting how to utilize the findings in a pragmatic and
practical manner, based on the investigator’s perspective there are three main implications that
can arise from the current study.
The main finding of the study was that students do utilize a variety of self-regulating pro-
cesses when learning in the flipped classroom; however, when assessing the interview and ob-
servational data, what emerged was that students as a whole did not fully regulate their learning
in the manner described by Zimmerman (2002). The implication of the aforementioned finding
is that engineering courses utilizing the flipped method may benefit from embedding specific
scaffolds so that students are prompted and/or guided to behave in a self-regulating manner. For
instance, Lee, Lim, and Grabowski (2010) contend that learning environments such as the
flipped classroom, provide a greater amount of learner autonomy, therefore students may benefit
from embedded prompts that require students to assess their learning while completing an asyn-
chronous slideshow. A potential variable to add when students are viewing slideshows is to in-
corporate tasks such as having students summarize key ideas after specific segments, or requiring
students to complete targeted assessments related to the learning goals of a slideshow. Both Mil-
ler (2012) and Milman (2012) describe the necessity to incorporate activities for students to
complete so that they can have time to process and apply what they have learned when students
view recoded lectures outside of the classroom. Such tasks may promote a greater amount of
self-regulation. The benefit of attempting to promote greater use of self-regulation while learn-
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 107

ing is that researchers have found it to be correlated with greater achievement (Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1986; Sitzmann & Ely, 2011).
A second implication for practice, related to the first, may be that students in undergradu-
ate engineering courses may need to be given specific instruction on how to regulate their own
behaviors. Rather than imbedding lessons that prompt students to self-regulate, students may
benefit from explicit instruction on what Zimmerman’s (2002) model of self-regulation looks
like when learning. Such instruction may be beneficial because novices developing mastery over
a topic have significantly different self-regulatory processes that they apply when compared to
experts (Zimmerman, 2002). Although the students in the current study were enrolled in a top
tier private university, their education within the field of engineering was still in its nascent stag-
es. Furthermore, given that the course was a freshman-level course, and that most of the inform-
ants of the study were freshmen, institutions may consider developing programs to support in-
coming students in their study habits. As described in the literature (Turner & Thompson, 2014),
one of the key areas that freshmen students often struggle with as they transition into the college
setting is developing effective study habits. Through the development of targeted interventions,
such as freshman seminar programs, students may improve their overall self-regulation abilities.
A third implication for practice is related to the idea of best practices when implementing
the flipped classroom. As described in the literature (Miller, 2012; Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman,
2014; The Flipped Learning Network, 2014; Milman, 2012) an effective flipped classroom
should demonstrate certain elements, such as: intentional planning, engaging learning environ-
ment, the elimination of technological barriers, and the incorporation of formative assessments.
Unfortunately, the flipped classroom under observation in the current study did not incorporate
the essential elements of an effective flipped classroom. The problems surrounding the flipped
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 108

classroom may have ultimately played a role in the findings of the current study, and how stu-
dents self-regulate their learning. To promote self-regulation in flipped classrooms, instructors
must ensure that courses are intentionally planned, so that the level of rigor, or lack thereof, does
not impede students in regulating their learning, as it did in the current study. Flipped class-
rooms must also ensure that intentional planning occurs so that there is a high level of structure
in the course. With intentional planning, instructors may better balance the amount of teacher-
centered pedagogy that arises in the flipped classroom, versus student-centered pedagogy. For
instance, in the current study, one could conclude that if the instructor planned the lessons of the
course more effectively, then the professor would not have lectured so much during the face-to-
face component of the class, and instead could have ensured that a greater amount of student-
centered activities occurred. Furthermore, related to the poor perceptions of the flipped class-
room that some students had, instructors must also make sure the recorded media that is being
utilized are effective in supporting students’ learning. Otherwise, students’ learning may be neg-
atively impacted, as was the case for some students in the current study.
Future Research
By examining how students self-regulate their learning, the current study added to the
breadth of knowledge related to flipped learning and engineering education. To further under-
stand the findings of the current study, and also to expand on the information gained by the
study, future researchers can focus on the following suggestions.
First, future studies could add to the current study’s findings by examining an engineer-
ing course that fully utilizes the flipped classroom method. By doing so, future studies could
support the current study’s findings, or find greater insights into how students self-regulate their
learning when a course is fully flipped.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 109

A second area researchers could examine is how upper-division students and/or graduate
students utilize self-regulation in flipped classrooms. The benefit of examining the aforemen-
tioned area would be to further understand how students self-regulate in the flipped classroom
context, while also examining whether or not students utilize stronger self-regulations methods
as they become more proficient in the field of engineering.
A third direction future research could examine is understanding how students self-
regulate their learning in traditional classrooms versus flipped classrooms. The benefit of com-
pleting such a study would be to understand whether or not the type of course students partici-
pate in impacts students’ self-regulation.
Conclusion
The study provided added insight into a relatively new pedagogical method by examining
how undergraduate students self-regulate their learning when participating in a flipped course.
The primary findings of the study were that students do utilize a variety of self-regulation pro-
cesses (see Appendix E); however, when utilizing Zimmerman’s (2002) self-regulation model,
students were found to have gaps in their self-regulation process. A significant area in which
students were found to have a gap in self-regulation was the self-reflection phase, which may
have been related to an emergent finding that students did not perceive the flipped course to be
rigorous enough to require such actions. Additionally, the researcher found that students utilized
essentially the same self-regulation process in traditional classes, as compared to the flipped en-
gineering course examined in the current study. Furthermore, the study found that students held
mixed perceptions of the flipped classroom, and that the flipped classroom under observation did
not implement the best practices associated with the flipped classroom.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 110

Although the findings in the current study are important to the field of flipped learning
and engineering education, there were some limitations to the study, which impact the reliability
of the study’s findings. To address the current study’s limitations, educational stakeholders
could benefit from examining a larger population of undergraduate engineering students enrolled
in a flipped course. Furthermore, researchers could examine a more diverse population of stu-
dents, not solely focusing on urban students enrolled in a top tier private university as in the cur-
rent study. Future study’s could also utilize a stronger interview protocol and/or utilize a mixed
methods approach, which could strengthen the findings of the study.
In addition to addressing some of the limitations of the study, future researchers could
expand on the study’s findings by examining a fully flipped course, which could better illustrate
how students self-regulate their learning in a flipped course. Secondly, future research could an-
alyze how upper-division students and/or graduate students self-regulate their learning. The
benefit of such a study would be to address whether the nature of the flipped course impacts self-
regulation, and to examine if older and plausibly more proficient students utilize differing self-
regulation processes in the flipped classroom context. A third direction future researchers could
take is comparing the self-regulation processes that students enrolled in a flipped classroom uti-
lize versus students enrolled in the same non-flipped courses. The findings of such a study could
potentially shed light into how stakeholders can develop courses that promote stronger self-
regulation.
In summary, the significance of the study was that it added to the breadth of knowledge
that exists within the field of engineering education and the flipped classroom model. However,
due to the limitations of the study, future research is needed to support the study’s findings, and
to gain better insight into how students self-regulate while learning in the flipped classroom. The
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 111

benefit of continuing to research self-regulation with relation to flipped classrooms would be that
stakeholders would potentially have a better idea of how to promote self-regulation in students,
which impacts student learning (Zimmerman, 2012) and is an essential life-long learning skill
that is highly sought after by the engineering profession (Bernold, Spurlin, & Anson, 2007; Ma-
son, Shuman, & Cook, 2013).

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 112

References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States,
2009. Boston, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Aquino, L. B. (2011). Study habits and attitudes of freshmen students: Implications for academic
intervention programs. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1116-1121.
Retrieved from http://www.ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/jltr/article/viewFile/
020511161121/3617
Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In Hacker, D.J.,
Dunlosky, J. and Graesse, A.C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319-
339). Manwah, NJ: Eribaum.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9),
1175-1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the
online learning environment. International review of research in open and distance
Learning, 11(1), 61-80. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
634479631?accountid=14749
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 113

Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping,
and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research.
Paper presented at the 120th American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (1999). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Bol, L., & Garner, J. K. (2011). Challenges in supporting self-regulation in distance education
environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 104-123.
doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9046-7
Borsari, B., Murphy, J. G., & Barnett, N. P. (2007). Predictors of alcohol use during the first year
of college: Implications for prevention. Addictive behaviors, 32(10), 2062-2086.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.01.017
Casey, D. M. (2008). The historical development of distance education through technology.
TechTrends, 52(2), 45. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/article/10.1007%2Fs11528-008-0135-
z?LI=true
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2009). New higher education data shows thousands of
Pennsylvania high school graduates head to college unprepared. New Release, PA Dept.
of Education. Retrieved from http://www.pdenewsroom.state.pa.us/newsroom/cwp/
view.asp?a=3&q=148018
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 114

Chen, X., & Weko, T. (2009). Stats in brief: Students who study science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education (NCES 2009-161).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department
of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Educaiton Statistics.
Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and
environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An
analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(4), 924-942. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/40284742
Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional
technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580.
doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6
Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007). Students' perceptions on effective dimensions of
interactive learning in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology &
Society, 10(2), 133-146. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.2.133
Deperlioglu, O., & Kose, U. (2010). The effectiveness and experiences of blended learning
approaches to computer programming education. Computer Applications in Engineering
Education, 21(2), 328-342. doi10.1002/cae.20476
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 115

Estes, M. D., Ingram, R., & Liu, J. C. (1915). A review of flipped classroom research, practice,
and technologies. Higher Education, 2, 55. Retrieved from http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/
williamstewart287/512/module6/assets/AReviewofFlippedClassroomResearchPractice
andTechnologies.pdf
Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008). Using the inverted classroom to teach
software engineering. Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software
engineering, 777-786. doi:10.1145/1368088.1368198
Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the
flipped classroom. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 47(1), 109-114.
doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008
Graham, C.R. (2013) Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M.G. Moore (Ed.)
Handbook of distance education (pp. 333-350). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hao, Y., & Lee, K. S. (2016). Teaching in flipped classrooms: Exploring pre-service teachers'
concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 250-260. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.022
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A.. (2013). Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/43631584
Honken, N., & Ralston, P. A. (2013). Freshman Engineering Retention: A Holistic Look.
Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 29-37. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Haag/publication/266268373_Freshman_Eng
ineering_Retention/links/54f0e2010cf2f9e34efd1d22.pdf
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 116

Hoskins, B. J. (2013). The changing face of distance education. Journal of Continuing Higher
Education. 61(3), 189-190. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.839243
Honken, N., & Ralston, P. A. S. (2013). Freshman engineering retention: A holistic look. Journal
of STEM Education : Innovations and Research, 14(2), 29-37. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/
1355441589?accountid=14749
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.
doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.967701
Hutchison, M. A., Follman, D. K., Sumpter, M., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Factors Influencing
the Self‐Efficacy Beliefs of First‐Year Engineering Students. Journal of Engineering
Education, 95(1), 39-47. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00876.x
Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Büttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2010).
Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating frequency, quality, and
consequences for student performance. Metacognition and learning, 5(2), 157-171.
doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped
classrooms in an urban university: an exploration of design principles. The Internet and
Higher Education, 22, 37-50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Koole, S. L., Jostmann, N. B., & Baumann, N. (2012). Do demanding conditions help or hurt
self‐regulation? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 328-346.
doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00425.x
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 117

Kuh, G. D. (2007). What student engagement data tell us about college readiness. Peer Review,
9(1), 4. Retrieved from: http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/216609224?accountid=14749
Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education.
Review of educational research, 76(4), 567-605. doi:10.3102/00346543076004567
Larimer, M. E., & Cronce, J. M. (2002). Identification, prevention and treatment: a review of
individual-focused strategies to reduce problematic alcohol consumption by college
students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, (14), 148-163.
doi:10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.148
Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy
use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 58(6), 629-648. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6
Lee, S. W. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Students’ perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated
learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional
learning. Computers in human behavior, 27(2), 905-914. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.016
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Lindholm, J., Astin, H., Choi, J., & Gutierrez-Zamano, E. (2002). The educational paths of
recent high school graduates: College, work, and future plans. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 118

Litzinger, T. A., Lee, S. H., Wise, J. C., & Felder, R. M. (2007). A psychometric study of the
index of learning styles©. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309-319. Retrieved
from http://eng.kuleuven.be/onderwijs/SWEETT/extra-information/1988_felder.pdf
Litzler, E., & Young, J. (2012). Understanding the risk of attrition in undergraduate engineering:
Results from the project to assess climate in engineering. Journal of Engineering
Education, 101(2), 319-345. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=718d7bc7-
443c-495f-8eea-60e913196b04%40sessionmgr102&vid=0&hid=117&preview=false
Malinga–Musamba, T. (2014). First-year course experience and college adjustment: a case study.
Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(3), 278-280. doi:10.1080/14330237.2014.903067
Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook, K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted
classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. Education,
IEEE Transactions on, 56(4), 430-435. doi:10.1109/TE.2013.2249066
Milman, N. B. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used?.
Distance Learning, 9(3), 85. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://
search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1140334863?accountid=14749
Maxwell, J. A., (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 119

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyers, K. L., Silliman, S. E., Gedde, N. L., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). A Comparison of
Engineering Students' Reflections on Their First‐Year Experiences. Journal of
Engineering Education, 99(2), 169-178. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e24f25ff-
0a52-473e-a6f6-bfee6b4ac31d%40sessionmgr4005&vid=0&hid=4108&preview=false
Michael, A. E., Dickson, J., Ryan, B., & Koefer, A. (2010). College prep blueprint for bridging
and scaffolding incoming freshmen: Practices that work. College Student Journal, 44(4),
969. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/848933718?accountid=147
Miller, A. (2012). Five best practices for the flipped classroom. Edutopia. Posted online, 24,
2-12. Retrieved from http://web.uvic.ca/~gtreloar/Articles/Technology/Five%20Best
%20Practices%20for%20the%20Flipped%20Classroom.pdf
Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., & Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to
improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education. 52, 10 597-
599. doi:10.3928/01484834-20130919-03
Mullen, G. E., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2006). Student outcomes and perceptions of
instructors' demands and support in online and traditional classrooms. The Internet and
Higher Education, 9(4), 257-266. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.005
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 120

Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based
learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1126-1144.
doi10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.006
Nota, L., Soresi, S., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation and academic achievement and
resilience: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3),
198-215. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.001
Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis
of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172-209.
doi:10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2
Pillay, A. L., & Ngcobo, H. S. (2010). Sources of stress and support among rural-based first-year
university students: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(3),
234-240. doi:10.1177/008124631004000302
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated
learning. International journal of educational research, 31(6), 459-470.
doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00015-4
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated
learning in college students. Educational psychology review, 16(4), 385-407.
doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 269-286.
doi:10.1080/00313830120074206
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 121

Redekopp, M., & Ragusa, G. (2013). Evaluating flipped classroom strategies and tools for
computer engineering. Paper presented at: 120
th
ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition. Retrieved from
http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/pap ers/7063/download
Roach, T. (2014). Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New methods to increase
interaction and active learning in economics. International Review of Economics
Education, 17, 74-84. doi:10.1016/j.iree.2014.08.003
Rymal, A. M., Martini, R., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2010). Self-regulatory processes employed
during self-modeling: a qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 1-15. Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230838380_Self-
Regulatory_Processes_Employed_During_Self-Modeling_A_Qualitative_Analysis
Schrader, P. G., & Brown, S. W. (2008). Evaluating the first year experience: Students'
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(2), 310-343.
doi:10.4219/jaa-2008-775
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich.
Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 85-94. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230838380_Self-
Regulatory_Processes_Employed_During_Self-Modeling_A_Qualitative_Analysis.
See, S., & Conry, J. M. (2014). Flip My Class! A faculty development demonstration of a
flipped-classroom. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 6(4), 585-588.
doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2014.03.003
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 122

Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related train
ing and educational attainment: what we know and where we need to go. Psychological
bulletin, 137(3), 421-442. doi:10.1037/a0022777
Schuitema, J., Peetsma, T., & van der Veen, I. (2012) Self-regulated learning and students’
perceptions of innovative and traditional learning environments: A longitudinal study in
secondary education, Education Studies, 38(4), 397-413,
doi:10.1080/03055698.2011.643105
Shuman, L. J., Besterfield‐Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skills”—
Can they be taught? Can they be assessed?. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41-
55. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00828.x
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation
and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193.
doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4
Styron Jr, R. (2010). Student satisfaction and persistence: Factors vital to student retention. Re
search in Higher Education Journal, 6, 1-18. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/openview/ce088ceb2d6f961b7c5ed22055d37566/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2012). Results from the 2011
National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings. NSDUH Series
H-44, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4713Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration.
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 123

Suerken, C. K., Reboussin, B. A., Sutfin, E. L., Wagoner, K. G., Spangler, J., & Wolfson, M.
(2014). Prevalence of marijuana use at college entry and risk factors for initiation during
freshman year. Addictive behaviors, 39(1), 302-307. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.01.017
Talbert, R. (2014). The inverted classroom in introductory calculus: Best practices and potential
benefits for the preparation of engineers. 2014 ASEE National Conference Proceedings,
Indianapolis, IN.
Terrion, J. L., & Daoust, J. L. (2011). Assessing the impact of supplemental instruction on the
retention of undergraduate students after controlling for motivation. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 13(3), 311-327. doi:10.2190/CS.13.3.c
Turner, P., & Thompson, E. (2014). College retention initiatives meeting the needs of millennial
freshman students. College Student Journal, 48(1), 94-104. Retrieved from http://
libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/
1542889045?accountid=14749
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and
postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
12(3), 243-270. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ780680
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in an web-based course: A case study.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 5-22. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=50cc5972-
645c-440e-896f-ff934ae07e02%40sessionmgr106&vid=0&hid=111
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 124

Wang, Y., Cullen, K. L., Yao, X., & Li, Y. (2013). Personality, freshmen proactive social
behavior, and college transition: Predictors beyond academic strategies. Learning and
Individual Differences, 23, 205-212. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.010
Wong, J. (2010). An analysis of money attitudes: Their relationships & effects on personal
needs, social identity and emotions. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics,
8(1), 1. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://
search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/767548439?accountid=14749
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.
Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulated learning (pp. 531-566).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within
computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 20(4), 429-444. doi10.1007/s10648-008-9080-9
Wright, S. L., Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., & Murdock, J. L. (2012). Career development among
first-year college students: College self-efficacy, student persistence, and academic
success. Journal of Career Development, 40(4), 292-310.
doi:10.1177/0894845312455509
Yoder, B. L. (2011). Engineering by the numbers. American Society for Engineering Education.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulated learning (pp.
13-39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice,
41(2), 64-70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 125

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for
assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American educational research
journal, 23(4), 614-628. doi:10.3102/00028312023004614

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 126

Appendix A: Research Study Flier

Research Participants Needed!!!!

Study Purpose: To understand the self-regulatory learning strategies of students.

Qualifications to Participate: Must be an engineering student enrolled in a flipped classroom
and/or non-flipped classroom. Must be at least 18 years old.

Commitment: 1 interview that will last approximately 30 minutes.

Compensation: $25 gift card to Amazon.com

Contact: Daniel Yu (e-mail: yudaniel@usc.edu) if you’d like to participate!
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 127

APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol Form

Student Interview Protocol

Assessment Interviews

Introductory Protocol
To assist our note-taking, I would like to audio tape our conversation today. Please sign the re-
lease form. For your information, only individuals working on the project will be privy to the
tapes which will eventually be destroyed after they are transcribed. In addition, you must sign a
form devised to meet our human subject requirements. Essentially, this document states that: (1)
all information will be held confidential, (2) your participation is voluntary and you may stop at
any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for
your agreeing to participate.

I have planned this interview to last no longer than 45 minutes. During the interview, I have
several questions that I would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to
interrupt you in order to move forward to complete this line of questioning.

A. Interview Questions
Task Analysis
1.) Could you describe the goals you set for yourself prior do starting the flipped course?

2.) Would you say the goals you set were different than your traditional courses?
Probe: If so, could you explain how they differed?
3.) Could you describe the specific plans you made to help you succeed as a student in the
flipped classroom?
Probe: Could you give me more examples?

4.) How would you describe the plans you used to succeed in a traditional engineering course?
Probe: Could you give more examples?

Motivation
5.) Could you describe the internal factors that helped motivate you in the flipped class?
Probe: Could you give me more examples?

6.) Could you describe the internal factors that motivated you in your traditional engineering
courses?
Probe: Could you give me more examples?

Self-Control
4.) Could you describe the specific strategies you have used to help you learn during your partic-
ipation in the flipped course?
Probe: Could you give me more examples during the face-to-face component?
Probe: Could you give me more examples you used during the online component?

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 128

5.) Could you describe the specific strategies you have used to help you learn during your partic-
ipation in a traditional engineering course?
Probe: Could you give me more examples?

Self-Observation
5.) Could you describe how you monitored your learning during the flipped course?
Probe: Could you give me more examples?

6.) Could you describe how you monitored your learning in a traditional engineering courses?
Probe: Could you give me more examples?

Self-Judgment
7.) Could you describe how you evaluated your learning in the flipped classroom?
Probe: Could you give me more examples?

8.) Could you describe how you evaluated your learning in a traditional engineering course?
Probe: Could you give me more examples?

Self-Reaction
9.) Could you describe what you would do if a learning strategy you used did not work during
your participation in the flipped course?
Probe: What was the strategy/strategies?
Probe: What alternative strategy/strategies did you use?

10.) Could you describe what you would do if a learning strategy you used did not work during
your participation in a traditional course?
Probe: What was the strategy/strategies?
Probe: What alternative strategy/strategies did you use?

Environmental Structuring
11.) When you were learning independently in the flipped course, could you describe how you
would control the environment you were learning in?
Probe: If so, how did/do you control the environment?
Probe: Where would you study?

12.) When you were learning independently in the traditional engineering course, could you de-
scribe how you would control the environment you were learning in?
Probe: If so, how did/do you control the environment?
Probe: Where would you study?

Social Support
13.) Could you give me some examples of the types of social support that you would use in the
flipped course to support your learning?
Probe: Who did you seek support from when you were outside of the class?
Probe: What about while you are in class?

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 129

14.) Could you give me some examples of the types of social support that you would use in a
traditional engineering course to support your learning?
Probe: Who did you seek support from when you were outside of the class?
Probe: What about while you are in class?

C. Post-Interviewer Comments and/or Observations
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 130

APPENDIX C: Observational Protocol
Research Question 1: What self-regulating learning processes do engineering students enrolled in
an undergraduate flipped classroom utilize while learning?

Start Time:_____ End Time:_____

Physical Description of the Classroom:

Observations on:
Task-analysis:

Motivation:

Self-control:

Self-observing:

Self-judgment:

Self-reaction:

Environmental Structuring:

Social Support:
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 131

Appendix D: Information/Fact Sheet for Non-Medical Research

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

EXPLORATORY STUDY ON FLIPPED LEARNING & SELF-REGULATION

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Daniel Yu under the supervision
of Dr. Patricia Toby because you are an undergraduate engineering student enrolled in a flipped
classroom. You must be aged 18 and up to participate. Research studies include only people
whole voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You
should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine how students enrolled in a flipped course apply self-
regulated learning processes in order to learn new topics. Some of the mean areas this study
seeks to gain insight in is: how students motivate themselves to learn, the types of learning
strategies students utilize in order to learn, and how students utilize their social surroundings to
support their learning. This study hopes to understand the types of self-regulated learning
processes that students engage in so that institutions can be more aware of how students learn,
ultimately to provide the potential for students to learn more effectively in the flipped classroom
setting.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study you will be asked to complete one face-to-face interview,
which is anticipated to last approximately 30-45 minutes. You will have the option of not
answering any question(s) you wish not to. For transcribing and thorough data-collection
purposes, your interview will be recorded using a digital audio recording device, unless you wish
to not have your interview recorded. If you do not want to have the interview recorded,
handwritten notes will be taken during the interview process. The interview will take place here
at the University of Southern California.

COMPENSATION
After participating in the interview you will receive a $25 Amazon gift card. You do not have to
answer all of the questions in order to receive the gift card, however, you must thoroughly
participate in the interview process in good faith. The card will be given to you at the end of the
interview.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your university/program/faculty or
your grades will not be affected whether or not you participate in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 132

There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address, or other identifiable information will not be collected. Pseudonyms will be used to
identify participants. If you wish to review, edit, or omit parts of the interview, you will have the
right to do so. To further ensure your confidentiality, all audio-recorded data will be stored in an
encrypted computer at the researcher’s residence. Only transcribers responsible for transcribing
our interview will have access to the audio recordings. The recorded data will be destroyed
approximately three years after the study has been completed.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. If results are shared with the participating sites, data will be presented
in anonymous/aggregate form such that no individual respondents will be identifiable.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel fee to contact Daniel Yu via
email at yudaniel@usc.edu OR danyu84@gmail.com

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.ed
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 133

Appendix E: Tables of Primary Findings
Table 1
Forethought Phase
Task-Analysis Frequency Self-Motivation Frequency
No findings Outcome Expecta-
tions
4
Intrinsic Interest 3
Utilitarian Value 1

Table 2
Performance Phase
Self-Control Frequency Self-Observation Frequency
Note-Taking 7 No findings
Attention Focusing 2

Table 3
Self-reflection Phase
Self-judgment Frequency Self-reaction Frequency
No findings No findings

Table 4
Environmental Structuring
Environmental Structuring Frequency
Quiet Environment 3
Listen to Music in Dorm 2
Clear Study Space 2

THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM & SELF-REGULATED LEARNING 134

Table 5
Social Support
Social Support Frequency
Instructors 4
Friends 2
General Peers 2

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

The sport of learning: the effect of college athletes' perception of identity on approach to learning

PDF

Thriving in collegiate life: can fostering growth mindset move undergraduate students from surviving to thriving?

PDF

Student experiences at for-profit career and technical colleges

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

Examining the impact of continuation high schools on students' self-efficacy

PDF

The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats

PDF

The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination

PDF

Online, flipped, and traditional instruction: a comparison of student performance in higher education

PDF

Factors influencing nursing students' motivation to succeed

PDF

Cross-cultural adjustment: examining how involvement in service-learning contributes to the adjustment experiences of undergraduate international students

PDF

The role of self-regulation strategies on two- and four-year college students with ADHD

PDF

A case study: what factors influenced classical music professors' self-efficacy in teaching and their self perceived self-efficacy on how to teach/mentor their classical music students to degree ...

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

Self-regulation and online course satisfaction in high school

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

Exploring organizational transfer in self-directed, self-selected elearning courses

Asset Metadata

Creator Yu, Daniel (author)

Core Title An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/08/2016

Defense Date 05/26/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Engineering education,flipped learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-regulation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crispen, Patrick (committee chair), Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email danielyu1984@gmail.com,yudaniel@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-266349

Unique identifier UC11280486

Identifier etd-YuDaniel-4528.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-266349 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-YuDaniel-4528.pdf

Dmrecord 266349

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Yu, Daniel

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA