University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION 1

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION: A COMPARISON OF
STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

by

Lauren Sachiko Prepose

________________________________________________________________________

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 2015

Copyright 2015 Lauren Sachiko Prepose

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are several individuals that I wish to express my appreciation to. First, I’d like to
thank my chairperson, Dr. Lawrence Picus for all of his expertise and feedback throughout this
process and to my dissertation committee members Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr. Monique Datta
for all their time and effort.
Second, I am truly grateful to Dr. Philippe Gross for helping me design my study, collect
my data, and for his unwavering commitment to me throughout the process; and to Lowell
Arakaki, who spent endless hours reviewing statistics concepts with me and teaching me how to
use SPSS. Without their knowledge, patience, and guidance this research project would not have
been successful.
Finally, my deepest appreciation to my family (mom, dad, Christine, and Cale) all of
whom started this journey with me and stood by my side through it all. Your endless love and
support through all of life’s journeys continues to give me the strength to always look ahead.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 10
Background 12
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Importance of the Study 19
Limitations 19
Delimitations 20
Definition of Terms 20
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
History of Online Education 23
Trends in Online Education 25
Defining Online Education 29
Online Education Research 31
Flipped Classroom 39
Summary 47
Chapter 3: Methodology 49
Research Design 50
Sample and Population 54
Instrumentation 56
Data Collection 58
Data Analysis 59
Summary 60
Chapter 4: Findings 61
Sample Population 61
Data Analysis 77
Findings 102

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

4
Chapter 5: Discussion 104
Discussion of Findings 106
Limitations 117
Implications 117
Recommendations for Practice 118
Recommendations for Research 120
Summary 121
References 123
Appendices 134
Appendix A: Course Syllabi 134
Appendix B: Instruments 154
Appendix C: Data 163
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Definitions of Traditional, Web Facilitated, Blended/Hybrid, and Online 14
Courses
Table 2. Summary of Previous Research Findings 43
Table 3. Summary of Demographic Data 75
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Scores for Traditional 78
Instruction Method Participants (n=21)
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Scores for Online Instruction 79
Method Participants (n=42)
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Scores for Flipped Instruction 79
Method Participants (n=10)
Table 7. ANCOVA Test for Homogeneity of Regression Between Post-test Scores 83
and Pre-test Scores
Table 8. Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance 84
Table 9. ANCOVA Test Results, Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 85
Table 10. Estimated Marginal Means 85
Table 11. Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance 86
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics of Final Exam Scores 86
Table 13. ANOVA Table 87
Table 14. Multiple Comparisons Table 88
Table 15. Mean Scores for “The instructor was accessible to students outside of class” 89
Table 16. Student Comments on Instructors’ Availability Outside of Class 90
Table 17. Mean Scores for “The instructor knew the subject area” 91
Table 18. Student Comments on Instructors’ Knowledge of the Subject Area 91
Table 19. Mean Scores for “The instructor encouraged students’ participation” 92
Table 20. Student Comments on Instructors’ Encouragement of Students to Participate 92
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

6
Table 21. Mean Scores for “The instructor provided a good atmosphere for learning” 93
Table 22. Student Comments on Instructor Providing a Good Atmosphere for Learning 94
Table 23. Mean Scores for “The instructor encouraged me to think for myself” 95
Table 24. Student Comments on Instructor Encouraging Students to Think for 95
Themselves
Table 25. Mean Scores for “The instructor graded tests and assignments fairly” 96
Table 26. Mean Scores for “The instructor informed students of their grades on exams 97
and assignments promptly”
Table 27. Mean Scores for “The instructor demonstrated concern for students” 97
Table 28. Student Comments on Instructor Demonstrating Concern for Students 98
Table 29. Mean Scores for “The instructor treated students fairly” 99
Table 30. Mean Scores for “The course objectives and procedures were clear” 100
Table 31. Mean Scores for “The course was well organized” 100
Table 32. Mean Scores for “The course material was presented in a clear and effective 101
way”
Table 33. Student Comments on Course Software 102

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Participants’ reason for choosing a specific type of instruction 64
Figure 2. Participants’ reason for taking the introductory psychology course 65
Figure 3. Prior online/hybrid experience of participants 66
Figure 4. Academic status of participants 67
Figure 5. Credits earned at the community college 68
Figure 6. Participants’ highest level of education attainment 70
Figure 7. Employment status of participants 71
Figure 8. Participants’ ages 72
Figure 9. Participants’ races/ethnicities 74
Figure 10. Q-Q plot of pre-test scores (traditional) 80
Figure 11. Q-Q plot of post-test scores (traditional) 80
Figure 12. Q-Q plot of pre-test scores (online) 81
Figure 13. Q-Q plot of post-test scores (online) 81
Figure 14. Q-Q plot of pre-test scores (flipped) 82
Figure 15. Q-Q plot of post-test scores (flipped) 82

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

8
ABSTRACT
Evolutionary changes in educational technology are leading to revolutionary changes in the
nature of higher education. This revolution is prompting many higher education institutions to
offer more flexible learning opportunities through online and blended (i.e. hybrid) courses as
well as to utilize more innovative strategies of instruction. The flipped or inverted classroom
design has recently appeared in the literature touting positive results such as: it increases
student-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction, allows for more personalized instruction,
enhances independent learning skills, improves student-learning outcomes, maximizes the
amount of material taught, and increases student satisfaction. However, few studies have looked
at is effectiveness in comparison to other instructional formats. The main purpose of this study
was to investigate student performance across three different educational formats: online,
flipped, and traditional face-to-face. Additionally the study explored student perceptions on the
instructor and the course across the three classes. Participants included 83 students (42 students
went through the online instructional format, 21 students went through the traditional
instructional format, and 10 students went through the flipped instructional format) at a
community college in the State of Hawaii. Data from a demographic survey, pre-test, post-test
and end of course survey were collected. In addition, final exam scores were recorded and
analyzed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the pre and post test scores
across the three instructional formats, while an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
analyze the final exam scores across the three instructional formats. Descriptive statistics such
as averages, mean scores, and mean scores were used to analyze the demographic data and end
of course survey results. Results of the ANCOVA showed that there was no significant
difference between the pre-test and post-test scores across the three instructional formats.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

9
However, the ANOVA showed that that final exam scores were significantly higher for
participants in the flipped method compared to the traditional method, and participants in the
online method compared to the traditional method. However, no statistically significant
difference in final exam scores was observed between participants in the flipped method and in
the online method. Additionally, the end of course survey results showed that overall students in
all three courses had a positive perception of the instructor and course. Specifically, students in
the flipped instruction method had the most positive perceptions, followed by students in the
traditional instruction method, and lastly by students in the online instruction method. The
findings from this research study not only add to the existing body of knowledge on the flipped
classroom but it also implies that the flipped classroom is a credible or better alternative to
traditional and online courses. Although further research is needed to understand fully the
benefits of the flipped classroom, thus far the literature is continuing to show that it may be a
superior method of instruction.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

10
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
With the advent of more advanced technologies, such as computers, smart phones, the
World Wide Web, and virtual realities education delivery options have expanded (Hiltz &
Turoff, 2005). In particular, advances in computer-supported education offers an alternative
learning environment which replicates traditional teaching by transferring knowledge to students
across barriers of distance and time. This new education delivery option is online education or e-
learning. As Moller, Robison, and Huett (2012) state:
[F]or the first time in our history, the educational establishment is facing real competition
and it is not from the school in the next county or the regional university down the road.
It is coming from the Web. A new generation of learners is calling for new ways to learn
and is demanding untethered educational access. Combine this with next generation
technology-enabled learning environments, and one has nothing short of a modern
learning renaissance brewing. (p. 6)
Enrollment in online education has grown exponentially since the mid-1990s when the
Internet began gaining popularity and widespread use (Lepi, 2013). The percentage of online
enrollments versus total higher education enrollments, across all degree-granting institutions
(private for profit, private non-profit and public) of higher education in the United States, has
climbed steadily resulting in a disruption in traditional education. In 1995, 5.6% of total
enrollments were online enrollments (Lepi, 2013). In 2000, 18.9% of total enrollments were
online enrollments (Lepi, 2013). In 2005, 18.3% of total enrollments were online enrollments
(Allen & Seaman, 2013; Lepi 2013). In 2010, about 28% of total enrollments were online
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

11
enrollments, and most recently in Fall 2011 about 32% of total enrollments were online
enrollments (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Lepi 2013).
Students pursuing all levels of education are choosing online courses and programs over
traditional campus options. In spring 2013, a joint project of The Learning House, Inc. and
Aslanian Market Research surveyed a representative sample of 1,500 students across the United
States that were recently enrolled, currently enrolled, or planning to enroll in a fully online
program. This survey revealed that 21% of the students were pursuing associate degrees; 27%
were pursuing bachelor degrees; 32% were pursuing master degrees; 4% were pursuing doctoral
degrees; and 16% were pursuing certificates or licenses (Aslanian & Clinefelter, 2013).
In addition, the report indicated that 44% of the students did not even consider
classroom-based programs when searching for a college. Furthermore, when asked about the
likelihood of their enrolling in a classroom-based program if an online program had not been
available 45% responded that they would not have enrolled.
No longer can higher education institutions limit exchange between instructor and their
students to a classroom, but may have to embrace other instructional delivery formats such as
online or hybrid learning in order to keep pace with this transformation (Foundation for
Excellence in Education, 2012; Hiltz & Turroff, 2005). Technology has changed the landscape
of higher education providing educators a great opportunity to modify their teaching with the
hopes of increasing access, student learning, and improving the educational experience
(Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2012; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
Online education has been researched extensively, with an abundance of studies
comparing the online or hybrid instructional format to the traditional face-to-face instructional
format. However, very few studies exist comparing three instructional formats (i.e. online,
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

12
hybrid, and traditional) side-by-side. Furthermore, relatively little research exists in the area of
the newly formed flipped/inverted classroom design, which is a form of hybrid education. It
uses technology to move lectures outside of the classroom and uses classroom time for practice
based learning activities (Strayer, 2012). This exploratory research study will endeavor the task
of comparing student performance and student perceptions of the instructor and the course across
the online, flipped, and traditional classroom instructional formats.
Background
Evolutionary changes in educational technology are leading to revolutionary changes in
the nature of higher education. This revolution is evidenced through the increasing number of
higher education institutions offering various forms of online education, the increase in students
enrolling in online courses or programs, the first U.S. News & World Report ranking the top
fully online programs, and the recent rise of the massive open online courses (MOOCs).
Recent research conducted by the Sloan Consortium indicates that in Fall 2002 71.7% of
higher education institutions had some form of online education (i.e. online courses) and in Fall
2011 that increased to about 86.0% (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Among those institutions that
offered some form of online education, many of them enhanced their online offerings to provide
complete online programs. In 2011, 62.4% offered completely online degree programs compared
to the 34.5% in Fall 2002 (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
Even though the growth rate for online enrollments in Fall 2011 was at an all time low
since Fall 2002 (9.3%), it well exceeded the negative 0.10% growth rate for overall enrollment in
degree granting postsecondary institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Showing that despite the
lower numbers of students enrolling in higher education institutions, those that do enroll are
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

13
choosing online courses or program options over campus based courses and programs. In Fall
2011, 6.7 million students reported taking at least one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
In order to assist students in making smart online program choices, in 2012, the U.S.
News & World Report released its first rankings for online programs (U.S. News & World
Report, 2012). They ranked 186 online bachelor degree programs in three categories: (1) faculty
credentials and training; (2) student services and technology; and (3) student engagement and
assessment. In 2015, now in their fourth year, the rankings cover online bachelor degrees and
online master’s degrees in engineering, business, education, nursing, and computer technology
(U.S. News & World Report, 2015). The rankings compare data of online degree programs
rather than the schools that are offering them. Instead of a students selecting a college or
university based on traditional variables such as: location, campus life, or meet and greets with
faculty, they are selecting a college or university based on the online courses or degrees being
offered by that institution.
Lastly, although massive open online courses (MOOCs) have been around for years, the
New York Times deemed 2012 the year of the MOOC when edX launched its first official
courses in the Fall (Pappano, 2012). A MOOC is an online course aimed at large-scale
participation and free access via the Internet (MOOCS University, 2014). These courses
typically consist of video lectures by well-known professors or experts in a particular field, often
affiliated with elite institutions (Bowen, 2013). However, these courses do not usually carry
college credits or lead to degrees, and they may or may not lead to certificates of
accomplishment that indicate mastery of skills (Clobridge, 2012). A number of web-based
initiatives supported by top universities and colleges offer MOOCs in a wide range of subjects.
Three of the best-known MOOCSs are: (1) Coursera, a for profit organization in close
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

14
collaboration with high-profile universities such as Princeton, University of Toronto, and the
University of Michigan; (2) Udacity another for profit organization that only works with
individual professors at various institutions and focuses on computer science and related fields;
and (3) edX a nonprofit partnership with MIT, Harvard, the University of California at Berkley,
Georgetown, Wellesley and the University of Texas System (Bowen, 2013; Pappano, 2012).
Although these are the exemplars in the world of MOOCs, many others have been created
promoting the ongoing growth of MOOCs in higher education (MOOCS University, 2014).
In addition to its ever-growing recognition in higher education, it is important to note that
online education, in its many manifestations, are described differently in the literature. Allen and
Seaman (2010) delineate between a traditional, web facilitated, blended/hybrid, and an online
course by measuring the amount and proportion of technology used inside and outside of the
face-to-face classroom (see Table 1 for descriptions).

Table 1
Definitions of Traditional, Web Facilitated, Blended/Hybrid, and Online Courses
Type of
Course
% of content
delivered online Description
Traditional 0% Course with no online technology used—content is delivered in
writing or orally.
Web
Facilitated
1 to 29% Course that uses web-based technology to facilitate what is
essentially a face-to-face course. May used a course management
system (CMS) to post the syllabus and assignments.
Blended/
Hybrid
30 to 79% Course that blends online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial
proportion of the content is delivered online, typically uses online
discussions, and typically has a reduced number of face-to-face
meetings.
Online 80+% A course where most or all of the content is delivered online.
Typically having no face-to-face meetings.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

15
Whereas the National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) (2008) proposes five
models for online education course redesigns that are distinguished by how technology is
incorporated into the course as well as the amount and type of technology used. A description of
each is as follows:
• The supplemental model retains the basic structure (i.e. the number of class meetings
remain the same) of the traditional course and (a) supplements lectures and textbooks
with technology-based, out-of-class activities, or (b) also changes what goes on in the
class by creating an active learning environment within a large lecture hall setting.
• The replacement model reduces the number of in-class meetings and (a) replaces
some in-class time with out-of-class, online, interactive learning activities, or (b) also
makes significant changes in remaining in-class meetings.
• The emporium model eliminates all lectures and replaces it with a learning resource
center model. This model depends heavily on instructional software, including
interactive tutorials, practice exercises, solutions to frequently asked questions, and
online quizzes and tests. It also requires on-demand personalized assistance from a
variety of staff including: faculty, graduate teaching assistants, peer tutors, and other
student support staff.
• The fully online model eliminates all in-class meetings and moves all learning
experiences online. However, face-to-face contact between the teacher and student(s)
is still plausible with the use of technology such as Adobe Connect or Skype. This
model may (a) entail the heavy use of highly innovative instructional software that
presents course content, increases the amount and frequency of feedback to students,
provides immediate grading of assignments, and enables self-pacing — this type of
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

16
software may also provide a built in tracking system that allows the instructional staff
to know every student’s status, both time-on-task and progress through the modules,
as well as provide information on the areas of difficulty for each student; or (b) use a
web based platform in which the course is organized around modules and faculty
members are responsible for course content, quizzes, and exams. There may be a
course coordinator who is responsible for overall course administration or graduate
teaching assistants who grade and respond to student questions or concerns. Links to
additional required readings, audio and/or video files and other resources may also be
provided.
• The buffet model customizes the learning environment for each student based on
background, learning preference, and academic/professional goals and offers students
an assortment of individualized paths to reach the same learning outcomes. This
model requires an online assessment of students’ learning styles and study skills as
well as an initial in-class orientation to provide information about the course
structure, the course content, and the various ways that the student might choose to
learn the material.
Such vast differences in methods supported by online education make it difficult to categorize
and analyze the true effect of online education on student outcomes when compared to the
traditional face-to-face format of instruction. Some empirical studies reveal that online
education enhances student learning, increases retention, promotes more independent and
reflective learning practices, creates innovative support for non-traditional students, and
improves student performance (Amaral & Shank, 2010; Jones & Lau, 2010; Rabe-Hemp,
Woollen, & Humiston, 2009). On the other hand, critics of online education argue that there are
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

17
steep developmental costs particularly for schools that have limited technological infrastructure,
it increases the need for technical support, increases student isolation (from peers and faculty),
and decreases student engagement (Friedman, 2011; Lyke & Frank, 2012; Long, 2013; Waits &
Lewis, 2003; Parsad & Lewis, 2011). Overall, a large number of comparative studies and
research have found no significant difference between the online and face-to-face formats in
terms of student performance outcomes (Bernard et al., 2004; Tallent–Runnels et al., 2006).
More recently, research has begun to focus on the flipped or inverted educational format,
which falls under Allen and Seaman’s (2012) blended education category. The flipped
classroom strategy relies on technology to introduce students to course content outside of the
classroom so that students can engage with that content at a deeper level inside the classroom
(Strayer, 2012). Although in its early stages, the research on the flipped classroom appears to be
positive with findings touting that it increases student-to-student and student-to-teacher
interaction, allows for more personalized instruction, enhances independent learning skills,
improves student-learning outcomes, maximizes the amount of material taught, and increases
student satisfaction (Mason, Shuman, & Cook, 2013; Pape, Sheehan, & Worrell, 2012; Strayer
2012).
Statement of the Problem
Since the flipped classroom is a relatively new concept, few studies have looked at its
effectiveness in comparison to other instructional formats. Research shows that the most
efficacious online learning environment involves high levels of three types of interactions:
student with content, student with instructor, and student with other students (Swan, 2003).
Although in theory, using technology to move the lecture outside of the classroom in order to
utilize classroom time for more problem based and collaborative learning activities, should
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

18
maximize these types of interaction for the student, thus promoting better student outcomes, this
may not be the case. There are few studies that have attempted to compare the effect online,
hybrid, and face-to-face formats have on student outcomes and no studies comparing the effect
online, flipped, and face-to-face formats have on student outcomes (Al-Qahtani & Higgins, 2013;
Larson & Sung, 2009).
In light of the growth, advancement, and increased use of technology within the higher
education realm evaluating to what extent different forms of online instruction affects learning
outcomes needs to remain a research priority. Therefore, this study explored whether there is a
difference in student outcomes and student perceptions of the instructor and course across the
online, flipped, and face-to-face instructional formats.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of this study was to investigate student performance in three different
educational formats: online, flipped, and traditional face-to-face. Additionally, the study
explored student perceptions on the instructor and the course across the three classes. Data was
acquired from introductory Psychology courses at a Community College in Hawaii. This
explorative quantitative research differed from other studies in that it sought to compare three
instructional formats, rather than just evaluating two typical modes of instruction (face-to-face
and online) as found in previous literature. Given the recent emergence of the inverted/flipped
classroom design, this research project set out to determine how student performance and student
perceptions of the instructor and course compared among the three different instructional
designs. The research questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the differences in student performance across the online, flipped, and
traditional face-to-face formats of instructional delivery?
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

19
2. What are the differences in student perceptions of the instructor and the course across
the online, flipped, and traditional instructional formats?
Importance of the Study
This research project endeavored to explore the effectiveness of various modes of
instructional delivery and determine whether there was a difference in student performance
outcomes and student perceptions of the instructor and course for the online, flipped and face-to-
face educational formats. Due to limited research in this comparative area, this study sought to
expand on the knowledge base in online education. The outcome of this study may provide
useful information that higher education instructors can utilize to enhance their instruction and
administrators may find the data useful in identifying and promoting effective instructional
delivery formats that maximize student success. This explorative research will lay the
foundation for future experimental and comparative studies on the effectiveness, desirability, and
feasibility of the online, flipped, and face-to-face instructional formats.
Limitations
This investigation had several possible limitations. First, data was taken exclusively from
a group of students at a public community college in Hawaii and results may not serve as an
accurate representation of other colleges and other student populations. Second, data collected
from students enrolled in the face-to-face, blended, and online courses were taken from one
discipline during an academic school year; thus, results may not be generalizable to other subject
matter or classes at other community colleges. Third, the sample size was relatively small
making generalizability difficult. Fourth, students were not randomly assigned to the online,
flipped, or traditional instructional formats making it difficult to control for pre-existing
differences between the comparison groups. Fifth, the curriculums among the three instructional
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

20
formats were not equivalent (e.g. different assignments), therefore making it difficult to control
for confounding effects on outcomes.
Delimitations
This investigation also had several delimitations. First, due to classroom and student data
access issues, the study was limited to one small community college in Hawaii. Second, due to
convenience sampling the study was limited to intact groups of students enrolled in classes
utilizing the online, flipped, and traditional instructional formats. Third, the study was limited to
one instructor who taught one online flipped section, and traditional section of the course during
the same semester. Lastly, the scope of the study was limited to comparing student outcomes
and student perceptions of the instructor across the three types of courses and did not investigate
student satisfaction with or faculty preferences for online, flipped, or traditional instructional
formats.
Definition of Terms
Online education. Education or training courses delivered to remote (off-campus) sites
via audio, video or computer technologies, including both synchronous and asynchronous
instruction (Waits & Lewis, 2003).
Massive online open courses (MOOCs). Online courses aimed at large scale participation
and free access via the Internet (MOOCS University, 2014).
Distance education. Education classified as the separation of teacher and learner and of
the learner from the learner group, with the interpersonal face-to-face communication of
conventional education being replaced by a less intimate mode of communication mediated by
technology (Keegan, 1996).
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

21
Asynchronous. Instruction and learning that does not occur at the same time (e.g.
students posting messages to a message board for the instructor or peers to respond to at their
own convenience) (Bejerano, 2008).
Synchronous. Instructing and learning occurs in real time (e.g. streaming video or audio
feed) (Bejerano, 2008).
Course/classroom management system (CMS). A CMS, also called a learning
management system (LMS), is a software application for administration, documentation,
tracking, reporting and delivery of e-learning education courses or programs. CMSs range from
systems for managing training and educational records to software for distributing online or
blended college courses over the Internet with features for online collaboration (Bejerano, 2008).
Traditional. Course with no online technology used — content is delivered in writing or
orally (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
Web facilitated course. A course that uses web-based technology 1% to 29% of the time,
to facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face course. May used a course management system
(CMS) to post the syllabus and assignments (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
Blended/hybrid course. A course that blends online and face-to-face delivery.
Substantial proportion (30% to 79%) of the content is delivered online, typically uses online
discussions, and typically has a reduced number of face-to-face meetings (Allen & Seaman,
2013).
Online course. A course where most or all (80% or more) of the content is delivered
online; typically having no face-to-face meetings (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

22
Flipped/inverted course. Employs readily accessible technology in order to free class
time from lecture. Instruction that usually occurs in the classroom is instead accessed at home,
prior to the scheduled class time (Tucker, 2012).

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

23
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of related literature on online education
as well as provide an overview of the current research. The chapter starts with the history of
online education and continues with a synopsis of the current trends in higher education. The
chapter then aims to define online education in order to frame the subsequent research reviewed
in this chapter. Several meta-analyses and literature reviews as well as comparative studies are
discussed. Lastly, the concept of the flipped classroom design is examined, as it is a fairly recent
concept in education and will be utilized in this research study.
History of Online Education
By tracing the history of distance education the origin of online education can be
recognized. Distance education, in the form of correspondence schools, was first created as a
means to reach students who could not easily access education. These correspondence schools
remained popular until the British Open University was established in 1969 and with the advent
of the Internet, distance education began to take a new form of instruction through online
education.
Distance education has existed for many decades and is characterized by Keegan (1996)
as the separation of teacher and learner and of the learner from the learning group, with the
interpersonal face-to-face communication of conventional education being replaced by less
intimate mode of communication mediated by technology. Until the second half of the twentieth
century, the only media available for distance education was written documents and phonograph
recordings (Holmberg, 1995). Albeit, what emerged was traditional correspondence schools or
home study (Holmberg, 1995; Keegan, 1996). Some of the first correspondence schools entailed
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

24
monthly exchanges (through surface mail) of written notes, guided readings, and frequent
assessments between a teacher and student(s) (Holmberg, 1995). Students pursued their studies
independently and submitted completed assignments to the instructor. Feedback was provided to
the student as the teacher graded and returned assignments and tests, limiting the teacher-student
interaction. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that distance education was applied
to university and pre-university study through the university extension movement (Holmberg,
1995). Academic degrees were authorized by pioneers in this movement such as: Chicago
University that created their university extension department in 1890, and Illinois Wesleyan
College who created the Correspondence University in Ithaca, NY, in 1874 (Holmberg, 1995).
These proprietary systems continued to grow without any radical changes until around 1969,
when the British Open University (OU) was founded (Holmberg, 1995; Keegan 1996).
The OU had an explicit social mission to provide educational access to those who were
otherwise denied the opportunity for learning and it delivered on its mission by adopting a
radically different approach from other conventional universities (Fleck, 2012). With new
developments in communication technologies, particularly radio and television broadcast, the
OU used broadcast lectures together with printed course materials sent by surface mail in
correspondence course style and provided support for students through tutorial meetings and the
OU residential summer program (Fleck, 2012). This radical approach led to the institution’s
great success and the OU has been widely emulated around the world (Fleck, 2012; Harris, 1999;
Holmberg, 1995; Keegan, 1996). According to Holmberg (1995), the British Open University
marked the “beginning of the period in which degree-giving distance-teaching universities with
full degree programs, sophisticated course, new media and systematic systems evaluation crop
up in various parts of the world and confer prestige on distance education” (p. 3). This milestone
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

25
in distance education coupled with the advent of new technologies such as the electronic
revolution, the Internet, high performance computing and communications systems, the World
Wide Web and virtual realities gave birth to what is now generally referred to as online
education (Dede, 1996; Harris, 1999).
It is this vertical relationship between distance education and online education that causes
the two terms to be used interchangeably in the literature. However, there is a clear distinction
between the two and online education is clearly a product of distance education.
Trends in Online Education
Distance education has metamorphosed from traditional correspondence schools to high
performing online education systems that utilize multiple technologies and methodologies in
order to promote education (Olmanson, 2011). This metamorphosis is illustrated by recent
statistics provided by the Sloan Consortium, the growing presence of for-profit online education
institutions, and the recent popularity of MOOCs.
Changing Course
Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States is the
tenth annual report on the state of online education (Allen & Seaman, 2013). In partnership with
the College Board and support from the Sloan Foundation, Sloan Consortium and Pearson, the
authors, Allen and Seaman (2013) aimed to track the opinions of chief academic officers and to
answer fundamental questions about the nature and extent of online education. Based on
responses from more than 2,800 colleges and universities the report provides valuable data about
online education.
First, the report indicates that despite the drop in overall enrollment of post secondary
students in fall 2011, the number of students taking at least one online course continued to
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

26
increase. There were 572,000 more online students in fall 2011 than in fall 2010, which was
slightly higher than the average growth of 568,000 online students per year. In Fall 2002, there
were 1.6 million students taking at least one online course and that number increased to 6.7
million in Fall 2011. Additionally, the online enrollment as a percent of total enrollment
increased from 9.6% in Fall 2002 to 32.0% in Fall 2011. Clearly more and more students are
demanding online courses and in response to that demand the number of degree granting colleges
and universities that offer some form of online education has increased as well.
In fall 2002, 71.7% of higher education institutions had some form of online education
and in 2012 that has increased to about 86%, leaving about 14% of higher education institutions
with no online offerings in 2012. Among those institutions that offer some form of online
education, many of them enhanced their online offerings to provide complete online programs.
In 2012, 62.4% offered full online programs compared to the 34.5% in 2002. According to the
authors, the number of private non-profit institutions with online offerings had the greatest
increase, from 22.1% in 2002 and 48.4% in 2012. This is due the fact that most public
institutions already had online offerings prior to 2002 yet most private non-profit institutions
began implementing online education from 2002 onward. Public institutions and private for-
profit institutions also had a growth in online offerings in 2012 from 2002 but their biggest
growth was in the amount of full online degree programs being offered (i.e. not just courses).
As a result of this increased interest in online education, many post-secondary chief
academic leaders view online education as a critical component of their long-term strategy.
Sixty-nine percent of the chief academic leaders surveyed in Fall 2012 reported that online
learning is critical to their long-term strategy (the highest it has been in the ten year period) and
this number has consistently increased over the past four years. Although there was a small
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

27
percentage that remained neutral on the topic and an even smaller percentage that did not believe
that online education is a critical component to their institutions future, if the pattern persists, the
percentage of academic leaders in these categories will continue to decrease over the years.
Private For-Profit Institutions
With new innovations and an increase in demand for online learning, private for-profit
institutions are expanding as well. During the 2006-2007 academic year, there were nearly 1.8
million students enrolled at more than 2,800 for-profit institutions of higher education in the
United States (Parsad & Lewis, 2011). Likewise, between fall 2000 and fall 2009, full-time
enrollment in degree-granting institutions in the for-profit sector increased from 366,000 to 1.5
million (Baum & Payea, 2011). In nine years, the sector went from enrolling 4% of full-time
students (3% of all students) to enrolling 11% full-time students (and 9% of all students) (Baum
& Payea, 2011). Although historically on the periphery of the higher education landscape for-
profit institutions are now established viable options in the postsecondary education arena and
are attracting more students.
One of the leading institutions in this sector is the University of Phoenix. Established in
1976 it has thrived in its supply of online education. In the 2009 academic year, its online
program enrolled more than 532,000 students (Maloney & Oakley, 2010). The school touts its
success on its twenty years of experience in online education and provides various online degree
programs. It offers 28 associate degree programs, 52 bachelor degree programs, 40 master degree
programs, and eight doctoral degree programs (University of Phoenix, 2014).
Another leading for-profit institution is Capella University. It is an accredited online
university dedicated to excellent and innovative online higher education (Capella University,
2014). They enroll about 35,000 students per year and offer 43 degree programs and more than
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

28
145 specializations (Capella University, 2014). Like the University of Phoenix the school offers
a range of degrees from certificates to doctoral degrees and advertises a 95% alumni satisfaction
rate (Capella University, 2014).
A number of online institutions have well over 10,000 students each, including DeVry
University, Strayer University, Kaplan University and Laureate International Universities
(Maloney & Oakley, 2010). With the expanding market for online education, these for-profit
institutions will continue to grow vaulting these degree-granting institutions to a dramatic level
of scale.
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS)
Educause (2013) defines a MOOC as a:
model of educational delivery that is to varying degrees, massive, with theoretically no
limit of enrollment; open, allowing anyone to participate, usually at no cost; online, with
learning activities typically taking place over the web; and a course, structured around a
set of learning goals in a defined area of study. (p. 1)
A MOOC brings together people interested in learning and an expert(s) who seek to facilitate
learning (Liyanagunawardena, Adams, & Williams, 2013). They are generally free non-degree
online courses that have no prerequisites, fees, formal accreditation or predefined required level
of participation but are structured similar to traditional online higher education courses with a
syllabus, assignments, lectures, and assessments (Educause, 2013; Liyanagunawardena et al.,
2013).
MOOCS have developed within international co-operative partnerships such as Coursera,
edX and Udacity (Educause, 2013). Led by Stanford University, Courseraʼs consortium currently
includes 70 world class institutions including a diverse set of institutions like the California
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

29
Institute of the Arts, the Exploratorium, and three museums (Educause, 2013). edXʼs consortium
includes institutions from the United States, Germany, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Korea,
France and Sweden (Educause, 2013). Udacity and P2P University are other related educational
platforms and the number of MOOCs continues to grow (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). As of
January 2014 there were are total of 1,369 MOOCS with the majority of them being organized in
the US (MOOCS University, 2014). With the increasing uptake and interest in MOOCS,
philosophical discussions on the impact and value of MOOCs are a priority among senior
leadership in higher education institutions (Pappano, 2012). Although MOOCs challenge the
longstanding traditions and models of education, the open access and open resources of MOOCs
is worth exploring.
Defining Online Education
As education technology continues to evolve practitioners and researchers find it difficult
to agree on a common definition for online education. Most authors describe it as access to
learning experiences via the use of some technology (Moore, Dickson-Deane, & Galyen, 2011).
While others describe it as the use of new multimedia technologies and the Internet to improve
the quality of learning by facilitating access to resources and services, as well as remote
exchange and collaboration (Alonso, López, Manrique, & Viñes, 2005). Waits and Lewis (2003)
provide a more comprehensive definition of online education as “education or training courses
delivered to remote (off-campus) sites via audio, video (live or prerecorded), or computer
technologies, including both synchronous (i.e. simultaneous) and asynchronous (i.e. not
simultaneous) instruction” (p. 1). As opposed to traditional classroom settings, online education
is independent of time or space and involves computer-mediated interaction between students
and instructor (U.S. News & World Report, 2014).
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

30
One reason it is difficult for those in the field to agree upon a common definition is the
varying degrees to which online education courses are designed. There are several
characteristics that need to be taken into consideration. First, the course can be web-facilitated
(courses where web-based technology is used to facilitate the face-to-face course by delivering
up to 29% of the course content online), hybrid (30-79% of the course content is delivered online
while the remaining content is delivered in the classroom), or purely online (80% or more of the
content is delivered online and usually eliminates any face-to-face meetings) (Allen & Seaman,
2012). Second, the online component of the course could be offered in a synchronous mode
(instructing and learning occurs in real time) or asynchronous mode (instructing and learning
does not occur at the same time) (Bejerano, 2008). Thirdly, there are a variety of different
technological tools that can be used for the online component of the course. These include but
are not limited to: discussion boards, email, chat, synchronous video conferencing, video taped
lectures, audio recordings, podcasts, CDs or DVDs, computer games, and course management
system (CMS) (Moore et al., 2011). These tools can be used in a variety of different
combinations and to different degrees to create the online learning environment. It is the many
combinations of these online education characteristics that make it difficult to adopt an inclusive
definition. Therefore, it is best to understand that the concept of online education is not static
and will continue to evolve for a long time and hence the definition must continue to adapt to
those changes.
Additionally, it is important to note that the influences of these different characteristics,
tools, and techniques that are used in online education makes it difficult to evaluate or perform
meaningful cross-study comparisons and build on the outcomes from previous studies (Lack,
2013; Moore et al., 2011). Furthermore, these differences lead to conflicting findings on the
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

31
effect online education has on learning outcomes and student performance. This will be
discussed further in the next section.
Online Education Research
With the evolution of online education and its continued growth in higher education,
examining what others have learned about the effectiveness of online education is useful, even if
great caution is warranted in interpreting some, if not all, of their findings.
In reviewing the literature on online education, particularly comparative studies between
online education and traditional education, many studies have been criticized for their
methodological limitations, which have led to questions about the validity of the research
findings (Bell & Federman, 2013; Lack, 2013; Zawacki-Richter, Bäcker, & Vogt, 2009).
Limitations of the studies include but are not limited to: lack of a rigorous design in which
students were randomly assigned to the face-to-face format or the online/hybrid format (instead,
students were generally allowed to self-select into a course format); lack of control for pre-
existing differences (i.e. background characteristics) in the students taking the online/hybrid
version course and the students taking the face-to-face version; small sample size which makes
generalizability difficult; single group pre-test, post-test designs; and confounding effects of
difference in instruction or curriculum materials (Bell & Federman, 2013).
The last mentioned limitation is worth expanding on for two reasons: (1) it is essential to
understanding the difficulty of adopting an inclusive definition for online education identified in
the previous section; and (2) it provides insight into the hesitation educational leaders,
policymakers, designers, and researchers have in accepting online education as a reasonable
alternative for traditional educational practices (Nora & Snyder, 2009). There are many studies
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

32
that compare web-based, hybrid, or online courses to traditional face-to-face courses. However
as Lack (2013) succinctly explains:
What is meant by an “online,” “web-based,” or “hybrid” course in one study is not
necessarily the same as what is meant by an “online,” “web-based,” or “hybrid” course in
another. Some of the online courses in the studies provided students with instant feedback
and hints as they worked through activities or simulations, which were supplemented by
virtual interaction, via discussion boards and chat rooms, with other students and the
instructors. Other courses seem far less sophisticated and appear to consist of little more
than video recordings of lectures posted on the Internet. The variety of courses available
that can be described as “online” or “hybrid” is noteworthy because the differences in
their features can play a significant role in how much students learn from those courses.
The same group of students may do much better than students in the face-to-face
comparison group when the former group is using a highly sophisticated online approach,
but much worse than the comparison group when it is using a relatively rudimentary
online approach…While some studies give an in-depth description of what the “online”
course being evaluated entailed (in some cases, even providing screen shots or sample
exercises), others do little to elaborate on what is meant by “online” or “hybrid.” (p. 10)
Overall, there is substantial heterogeneity in the types of online or hybrid courses that are being
studied. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the true effect online education, as a whole, has on
student outcomes. There are a myriad of instructional characteristics that can be found in any
learning environment and this remains true for online learning environments. A description of
the instructional characteristics is essential for illustrating and understanding the true impact that
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

33
a specific model of online education has on student outcomes. Unfortunately, these descriptions
are rarely provided and therefore rarely taken into consideration when results are reported.
The limitations described above are indicative of general patterns in research on online
education. Therefore, the results of the following studies have been carefully analyzed with the
author being cognizant of such limitations.
Meta-Analyses in Online Education
In order to capture an overall estimate of the particular effect or relationship of online
education and educational outcomes, many researchers have conducted meta-analyses on the
online education literature (Bernard et al., 2004; Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, &
Blomeyer, 2004; Machtmes & Asher, 2000; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009;
Zhao, Lei, Yan, Lai, & Tan, 2005). As stated by Bernard and colleagues (2004):
Meta-analysis makes it possible to combine studies with different sample sizes by
extracting an effect size from all studies...Thus, a meta-analysis in an approach to
estimating how much one treatment differs from another, over a large set of similar
studies, along with the associated variability. An additional advantage of meta-analysis is
that moderator variables can be investigated to explore more detailed relationship that
may exist in the data. (p. 384)
Two meta-analyses as well as a recent literature review on online education will be analyzed.
The first meta-analysis, conducted by Bernard et al. (2004) was a quantitative synthesis of
empirical studies from 1985 to 2002 that compared the effects of online education and traditional
face-to-face instruction on student achievement, attitude, and retention. Using an exhaustive list
of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 232 studies were included in this meta-analysis that focused
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

34
on asynchronous and synchronous online learning and included a mixed population of students
(K-12, undergraduate, graduate, and military), a majority of which were undergraduates.
Achievement outcomes were objective measures (e.g. standardized or teacher-made tests)
that assessed the extent to which students had achieved the objectives of a course and results of
the analysis revealed that there was no significant overall difference in achievement between
online learning and classroom instruction. However, the authors do state that there were
instances in which the online group outperformed the traditional instruction group by more than
50%, and there were also instances in which the traditional instructional group outperformed the
online group by 48% or more. Therefore, although statistically there were no significant
differences in student achievement, a closer analysis of the individual studies showed mixed
results.
The second meta-analysis, prepared by Means et al. (2009) for the U.S. Department of
Education (DOE), Office of Planning Evaluation, and Policy Development, examined fifty
studies evaluating online education between 1996 and 2008. This meta-analysis differed from
other meta-analyses of online education in that the authors limited the results to studies that:
compared web-based instruction (i.e. excluding video-based courses and stand along computer
applications) to face-to-face instruction; utilized random-assignment or controlled quasi-
experimental designs; focused specifically on objective measures of student learning (e.g.
student grades); and provided sufficient information to allow effect sizes to be calculated.
Likewise, some of the limitations specific to this meta-analysis were that 40 of the 45
studies had sample sizes of a few dozen learners; many of the studies were in fields of medicine
or health care that cannot be directly related to the large public university or the community
college setting; many of the studies focused on the hybrid mode and not the fully online mode of
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

35
instruction; and most of the studies focused on short educational courses instead of the more
popular semester-long courses.
The results of this meta-analysis concluded that students in online conditions performed
modestly better than those learning the same material through traditional face-to-face instruction.
Blended instruction had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did
purely online instruction. Online instruction that was collaborative or instructor-directed seemed
to promote better student performance than online instruction that required students to work
independently. Finally, the positive effect of online learning (both fully online and blended) was
reduced when curriculum materials and instructional approach were equivalent across
conditions. Again, the overall results were mixed.
Finally, a literature review conducted by Lack (2013) included 30 studies that were not
included in the previous U.S. Department of Education (DOE) review and fulfilled the following
requirements: (1) compare face-to-face education to online or hybrid education; (2) examined
learning outcomes or academic performance; (3) involved one or more undergraduate, for credit
college courses that are offered outside of a continuing education program; and (4) took place in
the United States or in a location with a comparable culture and higher education system.
The studies ranged in course subject matter (e.g. marketing, psychology, biology and
English) and were conducted at community technical colleges as well as private and public four-
year colleges and universities. This literature review is of interest because unlike the DOE meta-
analysis it focused on studies that can be directly related to the large public university or the
community college settings.
Lack (2013), similar to the previous meta-analyses, found mixed results. Some studies
showed no significant difference in exam performance between online and face-to-face students
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

36
while others showed that online students performed significantly better on exams than their face-
to-face students. In contrast some studies showed that students taking online/hybrid courses had
a higher probability of withdrawing and performed lower than students in face-to-face courses.
In general these meta-analyses and literature review offer a holistic understanding of the
comparative research conducted thus far on online education. However, the interpretations of
these results, should take into consideration the heterogeneity of the studies included in these
analyses. The studies differed on multiple dimensions (e.g. time spent on task, curriculum, and
pedagogy) and therefore, the advantages observed for online learning conditions may be the
product of those treatment conditions other than the instructional delivery medium per se.
Furthermore, there is little evidence to support conclusively the claim that online or hybrid
learning is significantly more effective or significantly less effective than face-to-face
instruction. One must be wary of assertions of the unmitigated success or failure regarding
online learning (Lack, 2013). At best the research shows that online education is generally just
as effective in promoting student success as traditional face-to-face instruction. However, it is
this lack of conclusive evidence that online education produces better learning outcomes than
traditional classroom education that demotivates faculty, educational leaders, and higher
education institutions to fully adopt online education practices.
Online versus Hybrid versus Traditional
Despite the vast amount of studies comparing online or hybrid education to traditional
education very few studies provide a three-way comparison of student success using these three
educational formats (Al-Qahtani & Higgins, 2013; Larson & Sung, 2009; Scherrer, 2011). To
review, a hybrid course is one in which 30-79% of the course content is delivered online while
the remaining content is delivered in the classroom (Allen & Seaman, 2012). In theory the
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

37
hybrid education format utilizes the best or most appropriate features of both the online and
traditional formats to help enhance the student experience as well as maximize student success
(Larson & Sung, 2009). Although results of studies comparing hybrid education to traditional
education have generally favored hybrid education the following three studies comparing the
three educational formats to each other has provided mixed results (Amaral & Shank, 2010;
Bowen, Nygren, Lack, & Chingos, 2013; Jones & Lau, 2010; Tsai, 2010).
Larson and Sung (2009) compared student exam scores and final grade results in an
introductory Management Information Systems course that was taught by the same instructor
using online, hybrid, and traditional delivery formats. There were 168 students (22 in the online
section, 83 in the hybrid section, and 63 in the traditional section) enrolled in the class. An
analysis of the students enrolled indicated that there was no significant differences in students
based on race and age, however the online section had significantly more females than males.
Using an Analysis of Variance test the authors report that there was no significant difference in
student exam scores and final grades among the three different instructional formats.
Similarly, Scherrer (2011) compared final grades in an introductory statistics course that
was taught by the same instructor using online, hybrid, and traditional delivery formats. There
were 75 students (38 in two online sections, 17 in the hybrid section, and 20 in the traditional
section) enrolled in the class. Despite small sample sizes, the author reports that students
performed better, as measured by final averages, in the traditional class than in the hybrid or
online classes. This even held true after the author controlled for other student demographics as
some of the differences in performance may have been related to student demographics rather
than simply course delivery format. The traditional class outperformed the other classes in the
homework assignments as well but not with statistical significance at the 0.10 level. The
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

38
homework average in the traditional section was 85.2, hybrid 78.2, and online (section one) 80.8,
and online (section two) 74.8.
Lastly, Al-Qahtani and Higgins (2013) compared pre-test and post-test scores in an
introductory Islamic Culture course that was taught in the online, hybrid, and traditional delivery
formats. The study sample consisted of 148 students: 43 in the online section, 55 in the hybrid
section, and 50 in the traditional section. To establish comparability and because there was
randomization only at group level a series of possible confounding variables were explored at
pretest, including computer skills, experience, areas of specialism, and prior qualifications based
on a questionnaire. These were selected as the most likely to influence the outcomes of the
experiment and no significant differences were found. The results of the study show that there
was a statistically significant difference between the three methods in terms of students’
achievement favoring the hybrid learning method over both the online and traditional education
formats. However, no significant difference was found between the online education and
traditional learning groups in terms of students’ achievement.
In regard to student outcomes, Larson and Sung (2009) reported no significant difference
among the three different educational formats, while Scherrer (2011) reported that the traditional
format was more effective than the blended or online formats, and Al-Qahtani and Higgins
(2013) reported that the blended format was more effective than the traditional or online formats.
In other words, the research is inconclusive.
Therefore, more research comparing the three different formats on different measures is
needed. In the past, traditional delivery methods were considered the standard against which
other delivery methods were measured. However, given the extensive research on online
delivery, researchers can now use both face-to-face or online delivery formats as a standard
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

39
against other formats such as blended. Providing more empirical evidence of the effectiveness of
the blended format may provide a promising alternative for instructors who are in the process of
incorporating more technology and innovation into their teaching but are not ready to let go of
the traditional format altogether.
Flipped Classroom
A new blended educational format has recently emerged in higher education and appears
to have gained much attention among researchers as a new strategy to improve learning
experiences and increase student engagement. This new format, known as the flipped or inverted
classroom employs readily accessible technology in order to free class time from lecture. With
teacher-created videos and interactive online lessons, instruction that used to occur in class is
now accessed at home, prior to the scheduled class time (Tucker, 2012). This allows the use of
class time to be devoted to problem solving, skill development, and gaining a deeper
understanding of the class material (Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013; Tucker, 2012). The
teacher is able to provide a wide range of learner-centered opportunities in class for greater
teacher-to-student mentoring and peer-to-peer collaboration, increasing the possibility of
engaging students (Roehl et al., 2013).
Benefits and Limitations to the Flipped Classroom
Several benefits to using a flipped classroom design have been documented in the
literature for both instructors and students. For instructors flipping the classroom allows for: a
range of teaching methodologies to be employed; more one-on-one personal engagement with
their students; greater insight into students’ grasp of information and the progression of their
learning; a new opportunity to infuse technology and innovation for engagement into their
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

40
classroom; and more class time for interactive activities that reinforces course material without
sacrificing content (Forsey, Low, & Glance, 2013; Mason et al., 2013; Roehl et al., 2013).
For students, a flipped classroom design presents course materials in several different
formats, engaging students with various learning styles and preferences; encourages students to
become self-learners and better prepares them for the work environment; encourages students to
take more responsibility for their learning; allows absent students to stay on track without
lengthy interaction with the instructor or delays in learning due to missed assignments; and offers
convenience combined with instructional interaction (Forsey et al., 2013; Mason et al., 2013;
Roehl et al., 2013).
Although these are plausible advantages, the flipped classroom strategy also has several
limitations. First, redesigning a traditional course into a flipped classroom can be very time
consuming for the instructor. Adapting traditional lectures into alternative media in order to post
content online entails technological skills the instructor may not have and thus will need to
outsource or learn (Mason et al., 2013; Milman, 2012; Roehl et al., 2013). Furthermore,
capturing and editing the media to ensure a high quality product can also be lengthy process
(Milman, 2012). Second, it requires that students take more responsibility for their learning,
which not all students are motivated to do (Mason et al., 2013; Milman, 2012; Roehl et al.,
2013). Yet, a successful flipped classroom assumes that students will attend class time prepared
to further their understanding of the content (which should have been reviewed at home) through
other activities. Third, the flipped classroom strategy may not be applicable for all subjects or
course levels. Bland (2006) was cautious about using a flipped classroom in more advanced
courses, while Strayer (2012) and Fredrickson, Reed, and Clifford (2005) suggest that the
strategy may actually be more applicable in advance courses. Additionally, the flipped
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

41
classroom may not be the best approach for second language learners or those with learning
challenges — which represents learners at all levels and settings (Milman, 2012). Fourth, the
initial costs to redesign a traditional course into a flipped classroom may be difficult for
institutions that have limited funding or lack the technological resources (Mason et al., 2013;
Roehl et al., 2013). Lastly, the success of the flipped classroom strategy relies heavily on the
availability of computers and access to Internet outside of the classroom (Roehl et al., 2013).
Educators must be cautious of implementing this strategy if they are unsure as to whether or not
all learners will have access to these necessary tools. Although there may be many benefits to
implementing a flipped classroom, educators need to also be aware of its limitations in order to
plan for and minimize the potential challenges.
Flipped vs Traditional
In an effort to measure the effectiveness of a flipped classroom on student learning
outcomes several studies have compared the flipped classroom to the traditional classroom. In
general, the results of these studies have been mixed. Wilson (2013) compared exam scores and
final grades of students who took a traditional undergraduate statistics course to students who
took the same course in a flipped classroom design. Although the structures between the two
courses were different, the textbook, general course content, and exam content was generally the
same for both. Wilson (2013) reported that overall course grades were 9.99 points higher in the
flipped sections than in the traditionally taught sections. Furthermore, the exam scores in the
flipped sections were 6.73 points higher on average than the students in the traditional sections.
Overall, the findings favored the flipped classroom design.
Similarly, Mason et al. (2013) used a control-treatment experiment to compare student
performance between a flipped classroom and traditional classroom in an upper division
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

42
engineering course. To evaluate the effectiveness of the flipped classroom, students’
performance on matched problems in the flipped classroom and traditional classroom was
compared. Controlling for student background and ability prior to taking the course, the results
showed that the students in the inverted classroom performed statistically better on certain
problems sets (e.g. problems involving open-loop analysis or design problems) and on other
problem sets there was no significant difference in performance between the two groups.
Overall, students in the flipped classroom performed as good as or better than students in the
traditional classroom.
Lastly, a study by McLaughlin and colleagues (2013) endeavored to examine the
engagement, performance, and perceptions of first-year pharmacy students enrolled in a flipped
basic pharmaceutics course in comparison to students in a traditional classroom. Two concurrent
years of data was collected for the study. In 2011, the course was delivered in a traditional
lecture-based format to 153 students and in 2012 the course was delivered with a flipped format
to 162 students. The results of the study indicated that student academic performance (based on
the final examination) was not significantly different in 2012 (152 out of 200 points) and 2011
(154 out of 200 points). In other words there was no significant difference between exam scores
of students in the flipped classroom when compared to the students in the traditional classroom.
Therefore suggesting that the flipped classroom has no added positive effect on academic
performance when compared to the traditional classroom.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

43
Table 2
Summary of Previous Research Findings
Bernard et
al. (2004)
Purpose To compare the effects of online education and traditional face-to-face
instruction on student achievement, attitude, and retention.
Sample size 232 studies from 1985 to 2002
Institution(s) Various: K-12, technical/vocational, higher education, and military
institutions.
Course subject(s) Various
Design Meta-analysis
Performance outcomes Standardized tests
Results No significant difference in all three measures (student achievement,
attitude, retention) between online learning and classroom instruction.
In some studies, students in the online learning conditions outperformed
those receiving traditional instruction and in the other studies the
opposite was concluded.
Students in asynchronous online learning conditions performed better
than students in traditional conditions.
Students in synchronous online learning conditions performed worse
than students in traditional conditions.
Means et al.
(2009)
Purpose To compare the effects of online education and traditional face-to-face
instruction on student performance.
Sample size 50 studies from 1996 to 2008
Institution(s) Various: K-12, technical/vocational, higher education, and military
institutions.
Course subject(s) Various: the most common subject matter was medicine or health care
Design Meta-analysis
Performance outcomes Objective and direct measures (e.g. standardized tests, grade point
averages, grades, and other assessments).
Results On average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly
better than those receiving traditional instruction.
The difference between student outcomes for online and traditional
classes was larger in those studies contrasting blended/hybrid conditions
to traditional conditions.
Blended/hybrid conditions often include additional learning time and
instructional elements not received by students in the traditional groups
and therefore, the positive effects associated with blended learning
should not be attributed to the type of instruction.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

44
Table 2, continued
Lack
(2013)
Purpose To compare the effects of online education and traditional face-to-face
instruction on student performance.
Sample size 30 studies after 2008
Institution(s) Community and technical colleges as well as public and private 4-year
colleges and universities.
Course subject(s) Various
Design Literature Review
Performance outcomes Homework assignment scores, project grades, exam scores, final course
grades, and completion and withdrawal rates.
Results No significant difference in student performance between online learning
and classroom instruction.
In some studies, students in the online learning conditions outperformed
those receiving traditional instruction and in the other studies the opposite
was concluded.
Larson
and Sung
(2009)
Purpose To compare student performance, student satisfaction, learning
effectiveness and faculty satisfaction across three different instructional
modalities (online, hybrid and traditional).
Sample size 168 students
Institution(s) University of Illinois at Springfield
Course subject(s) Management Information System
Design Comparison across an online, hybrid, and traditional class.
Performance outcomes Exam scores and final course grades
Results No significant difference across all measures among instructional
modalities.
Blended and online modalities do very well when measuring student
satisfaction, learning effectiveness, and faculty satisfaction.
Scherrer
(2011)
Purpose To compare student completion, performance, effort and satisfaction across
three different instructional modalities (online, hybrid and traditional).
Sample size 75 students
Institution(s) Southern Polytechnic State University
Course subject(s) Introductory level statistics
Design Comparison across an online, hybrid, and traditional class.
Performance outcomes Exam scores
Results Students in the traditional condition had better performance in comparison
to the other two groups.
No significant differences in student effort or in student completion across
the three modalities.
Student satisfaction was high across all groups.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

45
Table 2, continued
Al-Qahtani
and Higgins
(2013)
Purpose Using a pre-/post- test design with control group, to investigate the
effect of e-learning, blended learning and classroom learning on
students’ achievement.
Sample size 148 students
Institution(s) Umm Al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia
Course subject(s) Islamic culture
Design Pre-/post-test design with control group
Performance outcomes Pre-/post-achievement test scores.
Results There was a statistical significant difference between the three methods
favoring the blended learning method.
No significant difference was found between the online and traditional
learning groups in terms of student achievement.
Wilson
(2013)
Purpose To investigate the effects of using a flipped classroom design (instead of
the traditional face-to-face instruction) on student performance and
students’ attitude toward the course and the instructor.
Sample size 2 classes taught during the 2010-2011 academic year and 2 classes
taught during the Fall 2011 semester. Number of students in each class
is unspecified.
Institution(s) Department of Psychology, Capital University
Course subject(s) Introduction statistics
Design Comparison of a traditional class to a flipped class.
Performance outcomes Pre-/post test, final course grades, final exam grades, student surveys on
quality of the course and instructor.
Results Overall ratings by students in the flipped classes were higher than the
traditional classes for “progress toward relevant objectives”, “excellent
teacher”, and “excellent course”.
Overall course grades were 9.99 points higher in the flipped classes than
the traditional classes.
Overall student exam scores were 6.73 points higher in the flipped
classes that the traditional classes.
Although there was no significant difference in pre-test scores between
the two different groups, there was a significant difference in posttest
scores favoring the flipped groups. Flipped group (M = 18.00, SE =
.64), traditional group (M = 16.00, SE = .62).

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

46
Table 2, continued
Mason et al.
(2013)
Purpose To compare the effectiveness of a flipped classroom to a traditional
classroom in three areas: (1) content coverage; (2) student performance;
and (3) student observations and perceptions of the flipped classroom.
Sample size 40 students
Institution(s) Department of Mechanical Engineering at Seattle University
Course subject(s) Control systems
Design Comparison of a traditional class to a flipped class.
Performance outcomes Quizzes and exams.
Course surveys
Results The flipped group performed statistically better on quiz and exam
questions in certain content (e.g. open-loop analysis or design) areas.
However, in other content areas, students in both classes scored
similarly.
Instructor ratings between the two groups were similar, except the
flipped class gave a higher rating to the statement, “The instructor
appropriately assessed learned skills through exams or reports”.
Students perceptions of the flipped classroom showed that: (1) students
recognized the new format required self-discipline; (2) students rated
videos and class time as strong contributors to their learning than the
homework; (3) over the duration of the course, there was a significant
decrease in the judged effectiveness of reading assignments; and (4)
students were initially frustrated with the new format but learned to
adjust to the need to come to class prepared.
McLaughlin
et al. (2013)
Purpose To determine whether “flipping” a traditional basic pharmaceutics
course would improve student academic performance, engagement, and
perception.
Sample size 22 students
Institution(s) UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy
Course subject(s) Basic pharmaceutics
Design Comparison of a traditional class to a flipped class.
Performance outcomes Survey and final examination performance.
Results Final examination performance between the two groups did not differ
significantly.
Survey results suggested that the flipped classroom promoted student
empowerment, development, and engagement.
Significantly more students preferred the flipped classroom format after
completing the course than before completing the course.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

47
The mixed findings among the studies comparing the flipped classroom to the traditional
classroom are not surprising. Similar to the previous research reviewed in this chapter, one must
be wary of assertions of the unmitigated success or failure regarding the flipped classroom
strategy (Lack, 2013). There is little evidence to support conclusively the claim that the flipped
classroom design is significantly more effective or significantly less effective than face-to-face
instruction. The only conclusion that can be made is that the flipped classroom at best may
improve students’ learning outcomes and at worst is as efficient as the traditional classroom.
Summary
Online education is a product of distance education and has transformed from traditional
correspondence schools to high performing online education systems that utilize multiple
technologies and methodologies in order to promote education. The increase in the number of
students taking online courses, the expansion of private for profit institutions in higher education,
and the growing recognition of the MOOCs are evidence of this transformation.
Although there are several limitations to the studies of the effectiveness of online or
hybrid education on student learning outcomes, a general conclusion among researchers is that
online education and hybrid education is at least as effective in producing student success as
traditional education. As the flipped classroom is a form of hybrid education it is no surprise that
the same conclusion can also be made for the flipped classroom. However, with improvements
in online education offerings and in the skill with which they are taught, there is optimism that
online education may soon produce better outcomes than traditional education. Therefore,
continued development, experimentation, and research on online formats are needed.
In the past, traditional face-to-face formats were considered the standard against which
other educational formats were measured. However, given the extensive research on online
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

48
education, researchers can now use both face-to-face or online delivery formats as a standard
against other formats such as the flipped classroom format. Providing more empirical evidence
that the flipped format may increase student performance may motivate educators to adopt more
technology and innovation into their courses.
In addition, very few studies provide a three-way comparison of student performance
using three educational formats. The studies that do utilize a three-way comparison have
compared online, hybrid, and traditional formats. There are no studies that specifically focus on
a three-way comparison using online, flipped, and traditional formats. In order to fill this gap in
the literature, this study will compare student performance across the online, flipped, and
traditional educational formats.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

49
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Technology has provided educators a great opportunity to modify their teaching and
embrace alternative instructional formats such as online instruction or the flipped classroom
design (Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2012; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
Research findings comparing online or hybrid education (which includes the flipped classroom
design) to traditional face-to-face education has varied and the only conclusion that can be made
is that online or hybrid education at best may improve students’ learning outcomes and at worst
is as efficient as the traditional classroom (Bernard et al., 2004; Cavanaugh et al., 2004;
Machtmes & Asher, 2000; Means et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2005). Additionally, most of the
research conducted in this area compares only two modes of instruction (typically traditional and
online) and there are few studies that have attempted a three-way comparison on the effect
online, hybrid, and traditional formats have on student outcomes (Al-Qahtani & Higgins, 2013;
Larson & Sung, 2009).
Since the flipped classroom is a relatively new concept, there have been no studies that
the researcher is aware of that has attempted to compare the effect online, flipped and traditional
formats will have on student outcomes. Therefore, this study endeavored to add to the research
literature on the effectiveness of alternative educational formats. In light of the growth,
advancement, and increased use of technology within the higher education realm evaluating to
what extent different forms of instruction affect student-learning outcomes needs to remain a
priority.
The purpose of this study was to compare student performance and student perceptions of
the instructor and the course across three different instructional formats. The same instructor
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

50
taught all three classes during the Fall 2014 semester utilizing the same textbook. The research
questions guiding this study were:
1. What are the differences in student performance across the online, flipped, and
traditional face-to-face formats of instructional delivery?
2. What are the differences in student perceptions of the instructor and the course across
the online, flipped, and traditional face-to-face formats of instructional delivery?
For this study, a pre-/post-test and a comparison of mean scores design was used to measure
student performance. The instructional format was varied to see if student outcomes were
different based on how instruction was delivered. The different instructional formats included in
this study were: (1) online, in which 80% or more of content and communications are mediated
through computers; (2) flipped, which is a form of hybrid education that uses technology to
move lectures outside of the classroom and uses classroom time for practice based learning
activities; and (3) traditional, in which all class meetings occur in a classroom (Allen & Seaman,
2013). This chapter describes: the research design, description of each of the courses, the
population, the sample, instruments used, study procedures, and how the data was collected and
analyzed.
Research Design
A quantitative design was used for this study, as it attempted to describe the relationship
across different instructional formats (online, flipped, or traditional), student performance, and
student perceptions by collecting numerical data (i.e. pre-/post test scores). According to Aliaga
and Gunderson (1999), quantitative research is explaining phenomena by collecting numerical
data that are analyzed using mathematically based methods such as statistics. Additionally, a
quantitative approach to inquiry for this study was appropriate for the following reasons: (1) the
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

51
researcher made interpretations of the statistical results; and (2) the type of data collected was
specified prior to the study whereas in qualitative methods the intent is to allow the data to
emerge from the participants throughout the course of the study (Creswell, 2009).
The study involved three groups. One group was taught through online instruction, a
second group was taught using a flipped classroom instructional design, and the third group was
taught through traditional classroom based instruction. First a demographic survey was utilized
to assess if differences in student background existed between the three different groups.
Second, to measure the amount of pre-existing knowledge on the course topic, all three
groups of students were given a pre-test. The pre-test was a 40 question multiple-choice test on
basic psychology concepts. Since the student learning objectives and the main sources of
information (i.e. the teacher and textbook) were the same for all three groups, in theory, students
should have acquired the same knowledge and all three groups should have had similar results on
the post-test. Therefore, in order to measure the learning as a result of the course experience all
three groups were also given the same post-test (i.e. the final exam) which consisted of the same
multiple choice questions on the pre-test as well as six essay questions. Enough time between
the pre-test and post-test had passed to eliminate question recall. Scores on the post-test were
analyzed for each group and differences in scores, if any, between groups were determined.
Additionally, change in scores from the pre-test and post-test were analyzed to identify any
differences across instructional approaches.
Lastly, in addition to analyzing pre-test and post-test (i.e. final exam) scores, an end-of-
course survey was utilized to assess if there were differences in student perceptions of the
instructor and course across the three instructional groups.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

52
Description of the Course and the Different Learning Environments
An important criticism from past research in comparative studies such as this indicates
that a detailed description of the instructional characteristics and learning environments utilized
in the study are rarely provided (Lack, 2013). However, understanding the differences in
instruction or curriculum materials is essential for illustrating and understanding the true impact
that a specific instructional format has on student outcomes. Therefore, detailed descriptions of
the three different instructional formats (i.e. classes) are provided below. See Appendix A for a
detailed course syllabus for each class.
The Psychology 100 course focuses on basic concepts and principles of psychology in the
areas of individual differences, motivation, emotion, perception, learning, methodology, tests and
measurement, history, abnormal, physiology, and applied psychology. The course is not a
required course for all degrees but it is an option for students who need to fulfill their social
science credit requirement for their program. The course emphasizes lectures, multimedia
presentations, discussions, and experimentation. The student learning outcomes are the same for
all sections of the course, however several differences in the structure and curriculum of the
courses exists.
Traditional learning environment. The traditionally taught section emphasized
lectures, with students attending class twice a week, for 75 minutes each class, over a 16-week
duration. During class, students listened to lectures and engaged in assigned group activities.
Students read from an assigned textbook and completed assignments outside of class. The
professor administered tests and quizzes in class. The main sources of information were the
assigned textbook and the lectures provided by the instructor. Students accessed other class
information through a course management system (CMS); however, the classroom served as the
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

53
hub for most activities. Students were graded on a number of different assignments: mid-term
exam, final exam, quizzes, weekly chapter assignments, library assignment, class presentation,
and class participation. Their final grade was based on a 1020-point scale.
Online learning environment. The online class section was conducted using
asynchronous computer mediated communication. The class ran over a period of 17 weeks. The
main sources of information were the assigned textbook, Launchpad (the textbook companion
website) and the instructor. Using a CMS students were able to complete assignments online.
Students were graded on a number of different assignments: four exams, chapter quizzes, weekly
assignments through Launchpad, and weekly discussion board assignments. Exams were taken
in a proctored testing center with a valid picture ID. Students were able to communicate with the
instructor online through the CMS, although students were given the option to use the telephone
or a face-to-face visit if necessary (i.e. utilize office hours). Their final grade was based on a
1000-point scale.
Flipped learning environment. The flipped class section was an accelerated course
utilizing both face-to-face classroom visits as well as asynchronous computer mediated
communication. The class ran over an eight-week period with class meetings on every Saturday
for two hours and forty-five minutes. The main sources of information were the assigned
textbook, Launchpad (the textbook companion website) and the instructor. Using a CMS
students were able complete assignments online and had classroom time with the instructor to
engage in learning activities. Students were graded on a number of different assignments: final
exam, online chapter quizzes, weekly assignments through Launchpad, in-class activities, a
research paper, and presentation. The instructor administered the final exam during class time.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

54
Students were able to communicate with the instructor online through the CMS and during class-
time on Saturdays. Their final grade was based on a 1010-point scale.
Sample and Population
The site for this study was a community college in the State of Hawaii. This site was
selected because the researcher had a professional relationship with an instructor at this specific
institution. After several conversations with the instructor, the researcher garnered the interest
and permission from this instructor to use his online, flipped, and traditional psychology 100
classes in the Fall 2014 semester for this study.
Sample
This community college is a public, co-educational commuter college in Honolulu,
Hawaii. It is one of ten branches of the University of Hawaii system anchored by the University
of Hawaii at Manoa. It first opened in 1946 as a technical school focused on food service and
has since grown into the state’s largest comprehensive community college with technical,
occupational and professional programs in business education, food service and hospitality
education, and nursing. It offers the state’s most successful university transfer program as well as
a well-respected STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) program.
This community college has an enrollment of about 9,000 students with a student to
faculty ratio of 18 to 1. Students are a mean age of 24.9 years of age. Student diversity consists
of: 18% Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian, 15% Japanese, 12% Caucasian, 11% Filipino, 10%
Chinese, 2% Pacific Islander, 12% Mixed, and 20% other.
The student population consists of 48.7% men and 51.2% women. Most students are
Hawaii residents (89.9%). However, there are a small percentage of students with foreign
residency (5.3%), US Mainland residency (3.1%), or US affiliated residency (.4%). About two
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

55
thirds of the student population are enrolled part time (less than 12 credits) and one third are
enrolled full time (12 credits or more).
For this study, a convenience sample was utilized. According to Creswell (2009) a
convenience sample is a statistical method of drawing representative data by selecting people
because of the ease of their volunteering or selecting units because of their availability or easy
access. The advantages of this type of sampling are the availability and the quickness with which
data can be gathered. The disadvantages are the risk that the sample might not represent the
population as a whole. For this study, the sample consisted of students who enrolled in the three
different sections of the same introductory psychology course at the community college
described above. Prerequisites to register for the course were English 22 with at least a C or
English placement of English 100, or consent from instructor. The same instructor using
different instructional formats (traditional face-to-face, online, and flipped) taught the three
sections.
Participants
The participants were taken from intact classes and consisted of students who self-
selected which class format they wanted to register for. As such, students were not randomly
assigned. Ninety-eight students participated in the demographic survey (27 students from the
traditional section, 13 students from the flipped section, and 58 from the online section).
Seventy-four percent of the participants were 18 to 24 years of age, 19% were 25 to 34 years of
age, 5% were 35 to 39 years of age, and 1% preferred not to answer. Student diversity consisted
of: 41% Asian, 15% White, 5% Hispanic or Latino, 5% Hawaiian, 5% Pacific Islander, 3%
American Indian or Alaskan Native, 2% South Asian or Asian Indian, 21% Mixed, and 2%
preferred not to answer.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

56
About half (47%) of the participants were enrolled part time (less than 12 credits) and the
other half (53%) were enrolled full time (12 credits or more). About one third of the participants
worked part time (29%), a slightly higher percentage (39%) of the participants worked full-time,
and 33% were unemployed. Forty-six percent of the participants had attained a high school
degree or equivalent and a similar percentage (43%) reported having some college experience
but no degree. About 11% of the students reported having either an associate’s degree or a
bachelor’s degree. Lastly, 63% of the participants had some experience taking an online or
hybrid type of course while 37% had no online or hybrid course experience.
Instrumentation
Data collection for this study involved a demographic survey, a pre-test, a post-test, final
exam grades, and an end of course survey. The researcher collected data during the Fall 2014
semester for all three Psychology 100 courses, as the courses ran concurrently.
Demographic Survey
The demographic survey was to assess if significant differences in student background
existed between the three different groups. The survey was given through an online platform
that allowed students to submit responses anonymously and only allowed the researcher access
to a summary of the data. Without the raw data, the researcher was unable to analyze for
statistical significance or to match the demographic data to any test scores. Therefore, the
demographic survey was utilized to describe the sample and participants of each instructional
group.
The researcher used a nine-question demographic survey capturing basic information
such as age, ethnic background, educational attainment, work status, and student status. The
researcher created the demographic survey and piloted the survey with several peers to ensure:
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

57
accuracy of the data collected; that the survey’s wording and clarity is apparent to all
respondents; and that the questions mean the same thing to all respondents (Fink, 2013). The
researcher then revised the survey based on the feedback received. Please see Appendix B for
the demographic survey.
Pre-test
The pre-test was given to all of the students participating in the online, flipped, and face-
to-face classroom-based instruction in Fall 2014. The researcher contacted the textbook
publisher and asked for a test bank of questions, which the researcher used to create a 40
question multiple-choice test. Questions ranged in difficulty from easy to difficult and were
taken from all chapters in the textbook. The purpose of the pre-test was to measure the amount
of pre-existing knowledge on the course topic. Scores on the pre-test were analyzed for each
group and differences in scores, if any, between groups were determined. Please see Appendix B
for the pre-test.
Post-test and Final Exam Scores
The purpose of the post-test was to measure student’s knowledge of psychology concepts
at the end of the course. The post-test (i.e. final exam) was given to all of the students
participating in the online, flipped, and face-to-face classroom-based instruction in Fall 2014.
The post-test consisted of the same multiple-choice questions from the pre-test. The final exam
score consisted of the student’s total score on the 40 multiple-choice questions as well as six
essay questions. Please see Appendix B for the final exam questions.
End of Course Survey
Students were encouraged to complete an anonymous online end of course survey
eliciting information on their perspectives of the instructor and the course. The institution
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

58
created the survey, which included 12 Likert scale questions as well as six open ended questions.
Therefore, the researcher had no input into the content of the survey. However, the researcher
was able to extract data from these surveys and compare student responses across all three
groups. Please see Appendix B for the end of course survey.
Data Collection
The data were collected during the Fall 2014 semester for all three courses. The
traditional and online sections were scheduled from August 2014 to December 2014 and the
flipped section was only scheduled from August 2014 to October 2014, as it was an accelerated
class. To ensure that safe and ethical standards were employed in this study, procedures outlined
by University of Southern California Institutional Review Board were followed. After attaining
IRB clearance, the researcher attended the first class for both the traditional and flipped sections
and recruited students to participate in the study. Students in the traditional and flipped sections
who agreed to participate signed the informed consent and were asked to complete an online
demographic survey and pre-test for 20 extra points for the course.
Due to the nature of the online section, the informed consent process was conducted
electronically. Through Laulima (the course management system utilized at the community
college) the study was advertised and students who wanted to participate needed to complete the
online demographic survey and pre-test. Students were instructed that by completing the
demographic survey and/or the pre-test they were agreeing to participate in the study and would
receive 20 extra credit points.
The demographic survey and the pre-test were conducted through Laulima. The
demographic survey was completely anonymously and the individual student responses could
not be identified (i.e. a summary of the data per group was provided by the system). Students
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

59
who completed the pre-test were asked to use a special identifier that masked their individual
identity but allowed the researcher to link pre-test and post-test scores. Students were given two
weeks from the first class to complete the pre-test in order to attain true baseline knowledge.
The post-test (i.e. the final exam) was administered during the last week of the class. For
the students in the online group the exam was taken in a proctored testing center with a valid
picture ID. Students in the flipped and traditional groups took the exam, administered by the
instructor, in the classroom on the last day of class. The instructor graded all essay portions of
the post-test to ensure consistency in grading across the different groups and the researcher
assisted the instructor in grading the multiple-choice questions for the traditional and flipped
groups.
The researcher stored all data collected from participants in a password-protected file,
locked up in a safe place. Once the scores on the pre-test and post-test were linked, the identifier
was stripped from the data, therefore ensuring anonymity for participants, upon reporting results.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis was used to decipher the collected data. Once the demographic
survey, pre-test scores, post-test scores, final exam scores, and end of course survey results were
collected, the researcher incorporated the data into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) for organizing and coding. Descriptive statistics, such as averages, mean scores,
percentages, variances and standard deviations was applied for all congregated items.
The researcher also used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to analyze the pre- and
post-test scores. ANCOVA is a statistical technique that allows the researcher to equalize initial
differences between groups (Salkind, 2012). For this study, an ANCOVA was used to test the
main interaction effects of categorical variables (the online, flipped, and traditional instructional
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

60
formats) on a continuous dependent variable (post-test scores or final exam scores) while
controlling for the effects of the covariate (knowledge of psychology concepts prior to
experiencing the course). According to Dimitrov and Rumrill (2003), in a pre- post- test design,
the purpose of using the pre-test scores as a covariate is to: (1) reduce the error variance; and (2)
eliminate systematic bias. Furthermore, in non-randomized designs, such as this study, the main
purpose of ANCOVA is to adjust the post-test means for differences among groups on the
pretest, because such differences are likely to occur with intact groups (Dimitrov & Rumrill,
2003; Salkind, 2012). ANCOVA increases the power of an F test for a main effect or interaction
by removing predictable variance associated with covariates in the model (Dimitrov & Rumrill,
2003).
Lastly, the researcher used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the overall final
exam scores across the three instructional formats. According to Cronk (2002), the one-way
ANOVA compares means of two or more groups of subjects that vary on a single independent
variable. It requires: (1) a single dependent variable (i.e. final exam scores); (2) a single
independent variable (i.e. the three instructional formats); (3) groups to be independent of each
other; and (4) the dependent variable is at the interval or ratio levels and is normally distributed
(Cronk, 2002).
Summary
This chapter described the methods performed in this research study. A detailed account
of the research design, a description of each of the courses, the study setting, sample and
participants, instruments used, study procedures, and how the data was collected and analyzed
has been provided. The next chapter will provide results gathered from the data collected and
statistical procedures used to conduct this research.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

61
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the results of the data analysis for this study. This quantitative
study compared the student performance and student perceptions of the instructor and an
introductory psychology course across three different instructional classroom formats: online,
flipped, and traditional. Instructional format with the categories of online, flipped, and
traditional, served as the main independent variable for the study, with student outcomes and
student perceptions of the instructor and the course serving as the dependent variables. The
research questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the differences in student performance across the online, flipped, and
traditional face-to-face formats of instructional delivery?
2. What are the differences in student perceptions of the instructor and the course across
the online, flipped, and traditional instructional formats?
Sample Population
Data were acquired from a community college in the State of Hawaii, which is one of ten
branches of the University of Hawaii system anchored by the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
The samples were drawn from three introductory psychology courses. One group was taught
through online instruction, a second group was taught using a flipped classroom instructional
design, and the third group was taught through traditional classroom based instruction. The same
professor taught all three classes during the Fall 2014 semester and utilized the same textbook.
The participants in this study were taken from intact groups; that is the students in each
group were naturally assembled through their course selection. As such, students were not
randomly assigned and without randomized assignment one cannot be sure the groups are
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

62
comparable (i.e. prior differences between group may affect the outcome of the study). Ideally,
all three groups should be as similar and interchangeable as possible. However, this limitation is
not uncommon in this type of study as randomized trials are rarely feasible in college campuses
due to the procedures and policies that the institution needs to follow (Bowen, 2013).
In light of this limitation, the researcher collected and analyzed demographic data from
all participants in order to describe the groups. Data were collected using nine-question
demographic survey. Data were imported into Microsoft Excel for analysis and percentages
were used in order to describe the participants from each group.
A total of 98 students completed the demographic survey (27 from the traditional face-to-
face class, 13 from the flipped class, and 58 from the online class). Results from the
demographic survey are below.
Description of the Sample Population
The demographic information of the samples is presented in this section. Pie charts for
each of the three categories of instructional design are presented. As previously mentioned, the
sample population for the demographic survey consisted of 98 students: 58 students went
through the online instructional format, 27 students went through the traditional instructional
format, and 13 students went through the flipped instructional format.
Figure 1 presents the pie charts for the participants’ reason in choosing a specific type of
instruction. For participants under the traditional instruction category, 52% chose that they learn
best in that certain type of environment, 33% chose that schedule was the reason, 7% chose
location as the reason, 4% chose time conflicts as the reason, while another 4% chose other
reasons. For participants under the flipped instruction category, 92% chose that schedule was the
reason, and 8% chose location as the reason. For participants under the online category, 59%
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

63
chose schedule as the reason, 17% chose time conflicts as the reason, 14% chose other reasons,
7% chose location as the reason, and 3% chose that they learn best in that certain type of
environment.
Figure 2 presents pie charts for the participants’ reason in taking the introductory
psychology course. For participants under the traditional instruction category, 55% took the
course for credit toward an associate’s degree, 26% took it for personal growth or fun, 7% took it
for a bachelor’s degree, 4% took it for work related reasons, another 4% took it for credit
towards a certificate, and another 4% took it for other reasons. For participants under the flipped
instruction category, 53% took the course for credit toward an associate’s degree, 31% took it for
credit toward a bachelor’s degree, 8% took it for work related reasons, and another 8% took it for
other reasons. For participants under the online instruction category, 45% took it for credit
toward an associate’s degree, 33% took it for credit toward a bachelor’s degree, 9% took it for
other reasons, 7% took it for personal growth or fun, 3% took it for work related reasons, and
another 3% took it for credit toward a certificate.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

64

Figure 1. Participants’ reason for choosing a specific type of instruction

7%
33%
4%
52%
4%
Traditional
Location
Schedule
Time conflicts
I learn best in this type
of environment
Other
8%
92%
Flipped
Location
Schedule
Time Conflicts
I learn best in
this type of
environment
Other
7%
59%
17%
3%
14%
Online
Location
Schedule
Time Conflicts
I learn best in
this type of
environment
Other
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

65

Figure 2. Participants’ reason for taking the introductory psychology course

26%
4%
4%
55%
7%
4%
Traditional
Personal growth or fun
Work related reasons
For credit toward a
certificate
For credit toward an
Associate's
For credit toward a
Bachelors
Other
8%
53%
31%
8%
Flipped
Personal growth
or fun
Work related
reasons
For credit toward
a certificate
For credit toward
an Associate's
For credit toward
a Bachelors
Other
7%
3%
3%
45%
33%
9%
Online
Personal growth or
fun
Work related
reasons
For credit toward
a certificate
For credit toward
an Associate's
For credit toward
a Bachelors
Other
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

66
Figure 3 presents the pie charts for whether the participants had prior experience with an
online/hybrid course. From the pie charts, 37% of participants under the traditional instruction
category had prior online/hybrid experience. For the flipped instruction category, 54% had prior
online/hybrid experience. For the online instruction category, 78% had prior online/hybrid
experience.

Figure 3. Prior online/hybrid experience of participants

Figure 4 presents the pie charts of the academic status of participants. For both the
traditional and flipped instruction categories, 85% of the participants were full-time students,
while 15% were part-time students. For the online instruction category, 31% were full-time
students while 69% were part-time students.

37%
63%
Traditional
Yes No
54%
46%
Flipped
Yes No
78%
22%
Online
Yes No
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

67

Figure 4. Academic status of participants

Figure 5 presents the pie charts of the credits earned at the institution by the participants.
For the traditional instruction category, 19% of the participants had earned 0 credits, 26% had
earned 1 to 15 credits, 33% had earned 16 to 30 credits, 11% had earned 31 to 45 credits, and
11% had earned 46 or more credits. For the flipped instruction category, 23% had earned 0
credits, 23% had earned 1 to 15 credits, 39% had earned 16 to 30 credits, and 15% had earned 46
or more credits. For the online instruction category, 14% of the participants had earned 0 credits,
26% had earned 1 to 15 credits, 26% had earned 16 to 30 credits, 19% had earned 31 to 45
credits, and 15% had earned 46 or more credits.

15%
85%
Traditional
Part-time Full-time
15%
85%
Flipped
Part-time Full-time
69%
31%
Online
Part-time Full-time
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

68

Figure 5. Credits earned at the community college

19%
26%
33%
11%
11%
Traditional
0
1 to 15
16 to 30
31 to 45
23%
23% 39%
15%
Flipped
0
1 to 15
16 to 30
31 to 45
46 or more
14%
26%
26%
19%
15%
Online
0
1 to 15
16 to 30
31 to 45
46 or more
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

69
Figure 6 presents the pie charts of the highest level of education attained of the
participants. For the traditional instruction category, 59% of the participants had high school as
their highest level of education attained, 37% had some college experience but no degree, and
4% had attained associate degrees. For the flipped instruction category, 62% of the participants
had high school as their highest level of education attained, 31% had some college experience
but no degree, and 8% had attained bachelor degrees. For the online instruction category, 36%
of the participants had high school as their highest level of education attained, 49% had some
college experience but no degree, 10% had attained associate degrees, and 5% had attained
bachelor degrees.
Figure 7 presents the pie charts of the employment status of the participants. For the
employment status of participants in the traditional instruction category, 37% were part-time,
15% were full-time, and 48% were not employed. For the employment status of participants in
the flipped instruction category, 47% were part-time, 38% were full-time, and 15% were not
employed. For the employment status of participants in the online instruction category, 24%
were part-time, 58% were full-time, and 18% were not employed.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

70

Figure 6. Participants’ highest level of education attainment

59%
37%
4%
Traditional
High School Diploma or
equivalent
Some college but no degree
Associate degree
Bachelor degree
62%
31%
8%
Flipped
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Some college
but no degree
Associate
degree
Bachelor degree
36%
49%
10%
5%
Online
High school
diploma or
equivalent
Some college
but no degree
Associate
degree
Bachelor degree
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

71

Figure 7. Employment status of participants

Figure 8 presents the pie charts of the age range of the participants. For the age range of
participants in the traditional instruction category, 81% were 18 to 24 years old, 15% were 25 to
34 years old, and 4% preferred not to say their age. For the age range of participants in the
flipped instruction category, 82% were 18 to 24 years old, and 14% were 25 to 34 years old. For
the age range of participants in the online instruction category, 69% were 18 to 24 years old,
22% were 25 to 34 years old, and 9% were 35 to 39 years old.

37%
15%
48%
Traditional
Part-time
Full-time
Not employed
47%
38%
15%
Flipped
Part-time
Full-time
Not employed
24%
58%
18%
Online
Part-time
Full-time
Not employed
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

72

Figure 8. Participants’ ages
81%
15%
4%
Traditional
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 39
Prefer not to say
82%
14%
4%
Flipped
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 39
Prefer not to
say
69%
22%
9%
Online
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 39
Prefer not to
say
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

73
Figure 9 presents the pie charts of the race/ethnicity of the participants. In the traditional
instruction category, 51% were Asian, 22% were mixed (two or more), 7% were White, and 4%
of each of the following: South Asian and Asian Indian, American Indian or Alaska Native,
Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and another 4% preferred not to state their
race/ethnicity. In the flipped instruction category, 46% were Asian, 38% were mixed, 8% were
Hispanic/Latino, and another 8% were Pacific Islander. In the online instruction category, 35%
were Asian, 22% were White, 17% were mixed, 7% were Hispanic/Latino, another 7% were
Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian, 5% were Pacific Islander, 3% were American Indian or
Alaska Native, 2% were South Asian and Asian Indian, and another 2% preferred not to state
their race/ethnicity.
A summary of the demographic data is provided in Table 3.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

74

Figure 9. Participants’ races/ethnicities

7%
4%
4%
4%
51%
4%
4%
22%
Traditional
Hispanic/Latino
White
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian
Pacific Islander
Asian
South Asian and Asian Indian
Prefer not to say
Mixed (two or more)
8%
8%
46%
38%
Flipped
Hispanic/Latino
White
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian
Pacific Islander
Asian
South Asian and Asian Indian
Prefer not to say
Mixed (two or more)
7%
22%
3% 7%
5%
35%
2%
2%
17%
Online
Hispanic/Latino
White
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian
Pacific Islander
Asian
South Asian and Asian Indian
Prefer not to say
Mixed (two or more)
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

75
Table 3
Summary of Demographic Data
Demographic
Questions Options
Traditional
Participants
(N=27)
Flipped
Participants
(N=13)
Online
Participants
(N=58)
Total
Population
(N=98)
Participants’
reason for in
choosing the
specific type of
instruction.
Location 7% 8% 7% 7%
Schedule 33% 92% 59% 56%
Time conflicts 4% 0% 17% 11%
I learn best in this type
of environment
52% 0% 3% 16%
Other 4% 0% 14% 9%
Participants’
reason for taking
the introductory
psychology
course.
Personal growth or fun 26% 0% 7% 11%
Work related reasons 4% 8% 3% 4%
For credit toward a
certificate
4% 0% 3% 3%
For credit toward an
Associates
55% 53% 45% 49%
For credit toward a
Bachelors
7% 31% 33% 26%
Other 4% 8% 9% 7%
Prior online
course
experience
Yes 37% 54% 78% 63%
No 63% 46% 22% 37%
Student
academic status
Part-time 15% 15% 69% 47%
Full-time 85% 85% 31% 53%
Credits earned at
the institution
0 19% 23% 14% 16%
1 to 15 26% 23% 26% 26%
16 to 30 33% 39% 26% 30%
31 to 45 11% 0% 19% 14%
46 or more 11% 15% 15% 14%

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

76
Table 3, continued
Demographic
Questions Options
Traditional
Participants
(N=27)
Flipped
Participants
(N=13)
Online
Participants
(N=58)
Total
Population
(N=98)
Highest level of
educational
attainment
High school diploma or
equivalent
59% 62% 36% 46%
Some college but no
degree
37% 31% 49% 43%
Associates degree 4% 0% 10% 7%
Bachelor degree 0% 8% 5% 4%
Participant work
status
Part-time 37% 47% 24% 29%
Full-time 15% 38% 58% 39%
Not employed 48% 15% 18% 33%
Participant age 18 to 24 81% 82% 69% 74%
25 to 34 15% 14% 22% 19%
35 to 39 0% 4% 9% 5%
Prefer not to say 4% 0% 0% 1%
Race/ Ethnicity Hispanic/ Latino 0% 8% 7% 5%
White 7% 0% 22% 15%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
4% 0% 3% 3%
Black or African
American
0% 0% 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian or
Part Hawaiian
4% 0% 7% 5%
Pacific Islander 4% 8% 5% 5%
Asian 51% 46% 35% 41%
South Asia and Asian
Indian
4% 0% 2% 2%
Prefer not to say 4% 0% 2% 2%
Mixed (two or more) 22% 38% 17% 21%
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

77
Data Analysis
Research Question 1
This section presents the results of the statistical analysis for the first research question:
“What are the differences in student performance across the online, flipped, and traditional face-
to-face formats of instructional delivery?” To address this research question, two sets of data
were analyzed. First, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed, with the post-test
scores as the dependent variable, the instruction method as the independent variable, and the pre-
test scores as the covariate. Before ANCOVA was carried out, the descriptive statistics of the
study variables are presented. Testing the assumptions of normality, homogeneity of regression,
and homogeneity of variance followed this.
Second, an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) was performed with the final exam scores
across the three different instructional methods. Specifically, a one-way ANOVA was used to
compare the means of the three groups of subjects that varied on a single independent variable
(i.e. instructional format) (Cronk, 2002). Before the ANOVA was carried out, the descriptive
statistics of the study variables are presented, followed by testing the homogeneity of variance.
Throughout the duration of the course, several students dropped out of the course,
transferred from the course, or did not take the final exam. These students were excluded from
the ANCOVA and ANOVA analysis. That left a total of 83 students in the sample; 42 students
went through the online instructional format, 21 students went through the traditional
instructional format, and 10 students went through the flipped instructional format. For the raw
scores of the pre-test, post-test, and final exam please see Appendix C.2 and C.3.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

78
ANCOVA Pre-Post Test Analysis
Descriptive statistics of study variables. The pre-test and post-test scores consisted of
the 40 multiple-choice questions. Tables 4 to 6 present the descriptive statistics for the pre-test
and post-test scores for each of the following categories of instruction method: traditional,
online, and flipped. For the traditional instruction method participants, the minimum pre-test
score was 11 while the maximum pre-test score was 31, with a mean of 19.19 (SD=5.55). The
minimum post-test score for traditional instruction method participants was 18 while the
maximum post-test score was 37, with a mean of 24.38 (SD=6.34). For the online instruction
method participants, the minimum pre-test score was 11 while the maximum pre-test score was
33, with a mean of 21.52 (SD=5.43). The minimum post-test score for online instruction method
participants was 14 while the maximum post-test score was 38, with a mean of 24.79 (SD=6.11).
For the flipped instruction method participants, the minimum pre-test score was 13 while the
maximum pre-test score was 29, with a mean of 21.4 (SD=5.08). The minimum post-test score
for flipped instruction method participants was 21 while the maximum post-test score was 38,
with a mean of 28.4 (SD=5.87).

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Scores for Traditional Instruction Method
Participants (n=21)
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Pre-test scores 11.00 31.00 19.1905 5.54634
Post-test scores 18.00 37.00 24.3810 6.34410

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

79
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Scores for Online Instruction Method Participants
(n=42)
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Pre-test scores 11.00 33.00 21.5238 5.42909
Post-test scores 14.00 38.00 24.7857 6.11490

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test and Post-test Scores for Flipped Instruction Method
Participants (n=10)
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Pre-test scores 13.00 29.00 21.4000 5.08156
Post-test scores 21.00 38.00 28.4000 5.87272

Testing for normality. Normality of the pre-test and post-test scores for each instruction
category was examined with Q-Q plots of the data. The Q-Q plots are presented in Figures 10 to
15. Figures 10 and 11 are the Q-Q plots for the pre-test and post-test scores for traditional
instruction method participants, respectively. Figures 12 and 13 are the Q-Q plots for the pre-
test and post-test scores for online instruction method participants, respectively. Figure 14 and
15 are the Q-Q plots for the pre-test and post-test scores for flipped instruction method
participants, respectively. As observed, data for all the plots somewhat follow the diagonal line.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

80
This indicates that pre-test and post-test scores data for all three categories are normal or
approximately normally distributed.

Figure 10. Q-Q plot of pre-test scores (traditional)

Figure 11. Q-Q plot of post-test scores (traditional)

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

81

Figure 12. Q-Q plot of pre-test scores (online)

Figure 13. Q-Q plot of post-test scores (online)

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

82

Figure 14. Q-Q plot of pre-test scores (flipped)

Figure 15. Q-Q plot of post-test scores (flipped)

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

83
Testing for homogeneity of regression. The homogeneity of regression assumption was
tested through the examination of the interaction between the covariate (pre-test scores) and the
factor (instruction method) in the prediction of the dependent variable. A significant interaction
between the covariate and the factor suggests that the differences on the dependent variable
among groups vary as a function of the covariate. The result of the test for homogeneity of
regression is presented in Table 7. The interaction is represented by the variable
Instruction*Test_pre. The results suggest that the interaction is not significant, F(2, 67) = 0.187,
p=0.83. From this finding, ANCOVA analysis would provide meaningful results.

Table 7
ANCOVA Test for Homogeneity of Regression Between Post-test Scores and Pre-test Scores
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 1214.350 5 242.870 10.447 .000
Intercept 306.002 1 306.002 13.162 .001
Instruction 4.025 2 2.013 .087 .917
Test_pre 755.881 1 755.881 32.513 .000
Instruction * Test_pre 8.685 2 4.343 .187 .830
Error 1557.677 67 23.249

Total 48999.000 73

Corrected Total 2772.027 72

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

84
Testing for homogeneity of variance. Homogeneity of variance was examined through
Levene’s test of equality of error variances. The result of the Levene’s test is presented in Table
8. As observed, the underlying assumption of homogeneity of variance has been met, as
evidenced by F(2, 70) = 0.524, p=0.594.

Table 8
Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance
F df1 df2 Sig.
.524 2 70 .594

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Analysis of covariance was performed, following
the testing of the data for the assumptions of ANCOVA being met. As observed in the table, the
relationship between the covariate of pre-test scores (Test_pre) and the dependent variable of
post-test scores was significant, F(1, 69) = 47.666, p<0.001. This shows that there is a
relationship between the covariate and the dependent variable, essentially, between the pre-test
and post-test scores. However, with the independent variable of instruction method (Instruction),
the relationship is not statistically significant, F(2, 69) = 2.544, p=0.086. As such, while the
estimated marginal means table (Table 10) shows that the flipped instruction method has the
highest mean (M=27.99), followed by traditional instruction method (M=25.57), and then by
online instruction method (M=24.29), the differences of pre-test and post-test scores between the
instruction methods are not statistically significant. While there is a statistical significance
between pre-test and post-test scores for the whole population, the differences are not statistically
significant when compared across the three instruction methods.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

85
Table 9
ANCOVA Test Results, Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source Type III Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 1205.665 3 401.888 17.704 .000
Intercept 515.982 1 515.982 22.730 .000
Instruction 1082.062 1 1082.062 47.666 .000
Test_pre 115.514 2 57.757 2.544 .086
Error 1566.362 69 22.701

Total 48999.000 73

Corrected Total 2772.027 72

Table 10
Estimated Marginal Means
95% Confidence Interval
Instruction Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Flipped 27.991 1.508 24.982 30.999
Traditional 25.574 1.054 23.472 27.677
Online 24.286 .739 22.813 25.760

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

86
ANOVA of Final Exam Score Analysis
The final exam score consisted of the number of items correct on the 40 multiple-choice
questions plus their score on the six essay questions. To test whether the final exam scores
between the three instructional methods were significantly different from each other, analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed. Before the ANOVA test however, a Levene’s test was
performed to determine the homogeneity of variances, with the results presented in Table 11. As
observed, the underlying assumption of homogeneity of variance has been met, as evidenced by
F(2, 70) = 2.898, p=0.064. Table 12 presents the descriptive statistics of the final exam scores
for each instruction method.

Table 11
Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance
F df1 df2 Sig.
2.898 2 70 .062

Table 12
Descriptive Statistics of Final Exam Scores
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Flipped 10 144.2500 31.33621 97.50 197.00
Traditional 21 101.7143 30.18467 34.00 146.00
Online 42 172.5238 48.99788 48.00 244.00
Total 73 148.2808 52.15848 34.00 244.00

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

87
Table 13 presents the output of the ANOVA analysis, comparing the final exam scores
across the three instruction methods. As observed, the significance level of the ANOVA test is
statistically significant (p<0.001). This shows that there is a statistically significant difference in
the final exam scores between the different instruction methods.

Table 13
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 70384.106 2 35192.053 19.630 .000
Within Groups 125492.387 70 1792.748
Total 195876.493 72

A Tukey post-hoc test was performed, with Table 14 showing the multiple comparisons
table to show which of the participants in the different instruction methods had statistically
different final exam scores. As observed, there was a statistically significant difference in the
final exam scores between flipped and traditional instruction methods (p=0.029), with
participants from the flipped instruction method having higher mean scores than participants
from the traditional instruction method. There was also a statistically significant difference in
the final exam scores between traditional and online instruction methods (p<0.001), with
participants from the traditional instruction method having lower mean scores than participants
from the online instruction method. There was no statistically significant difference in final
exam scores between flipped and online instruction methods.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

88
Table 14
Multiple Comparisons Table
95% Confidence
Interval
(I) Instruction
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Flipped Traditional 42.53571* 16.26788 .029 3.5813 81.4901
Online -28.27381 14.89830 .147 -63.9487 7.4011
Traditional Flipped -42.53571* 16.26788 .029 -81.4901 -3.5813
Online -70.80952* 11.31607 .000 -97.9065 -43.7125
Online Flipped 28.27381 14.89830 .147 -7.4011 63.9487
Traditional 70.80952* 11.31607 .000 43.7125 97.9065
* Refers to statistically significant at the .05 level

Research Question 2
This section presents the results of the descriptive data analysis for the second research
question: “What are the differences in student perceptions of the instructor and the course across
the online, flipped, and traditional instructional formats?” To address this research question,
descriptive data of the end of course survey questionnaire was presented. There were a total of
12 end-of-course survey questions, with nine representing the perspectives of the students
regarding the instructor, and three representing the perspectives of the students regarding the
course. Statements were rated on a Likert-type scale, where the higher the score, the more in
agreement the participant was on the respective statement. Five open-ended questions were also
included in this end of course survey and responses to these questions were analyzed to see if
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

89
they supported the findings of the analysis. For the complete set of end of course survey
responses please see Appendix C.4.
Students’ perceptions of the instructor. Tables 15 to 29 present the descriptive
statistics of the end-of-course survey questions for the students’ perceptions of the instructor of
the respective instruction method. Overall, students from the flipped instruction method showed
the most positive perspective toward their instructor, followed by students from the traditional
instruction method, then finally by students from the online instruction method.
The first statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor was accessible
to students outside of class.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have
similar perceptions toward the instructor with regard to the first statement, which was positive.
However, students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this
regard (M=4.45, SD=0.69), followed by students in the traditional instruction method (M=4.32,
SD=0.75), and lastly by students in the online instruction method (M=4.04, SD=0.73). Student
responses to the open ended questions in this survey supported this finding (see Table 16).

Table 15
Mean Scores for “The instructor was accessible to students outside of class”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 3.00 5.00 4.4545 .68755
Traditional 19 3.00 5.00 4.3158 .74927
Online 46 3.00 5.00 4.0435 .72897

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

90
Table 16
Student Comments on Instructors’ Availability Outside of Class
Flipped “He promptly answers emails and he has office hours that we can go to if we
have any issues in his class.”
“He has made sure to ask before, during, and after class to see if anyone had
any concerns or questions they had about the class. Replies fast to emails
which is super great.”
Traditional “Responded quickly to emails.”
“He was available to us before, during and after class to help us and also via
email.”
“He mentioned office hours, responding quickly to emails, and sort of
reminded students to study or something”.
Online “Even though it was an online course, [the teacher] responded quick to
questions/concerns I had for the course.”
“He is always available to students.”
“He is a good instructor who makes himself available to his students.”

The second statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor knew the
subject area.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have similar perceptions
toward their respective instructor with regard to the second statement. However, students in the
flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this regard with all of them
strongly agreeing to it (M=5, SD=0), followed by students in the traditional instruction method
(M=4.79, SD=0.42), and lastly by students in the online instruction method (M=4.39, SD=0.80).
Student responses to the open ended questions in this survey supported this finding (see Table
18).

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

91
Table 17
Mean Scores for “The instructor knew the subject area”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 5.00 5.00 5.0000 0.00000
Traditional 19 4.00 5.00 4.7895 .41885
Online 36 3.00 5.00 4.3889 .80277

Table 18
Student Comments on Instructors’ Knowledge of the Subject Area
Flipped “[The instructor] definitely knows his subject, and does very well in sharing
his own knowledge to his students.”
“[He] definitely knows his stuff, and he has a lot of experience in his field, so
none of my questions were left unanswered or answered incorrectly.”
Traditional “Professor knows his subject very well. He doesn’t teach from the book but
provide many good story and examples related to the topic.”
“Knew what he was talking about and gave great examples to help understand
what is being said.”
Online “…is well organized and knows the material well.”
“He knew his subject and he makes the lessons easier by explaining things
better in the discussion pages.”

The third statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor encouraged
students’ participation.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have similar
perceptions toward their respective instructors with regards to the third statement. However,
students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this regard
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

92
(M=4.91, SD=0.30), followed by students in the traditional instruction method (M=4.68,
SD=0.48), and lastly by students in the online instruction method (M=4.31, SD=0.73). Student
responses to the open ended questions in this survey supported this finding (see Table 20).

Table 19
Mean Scores for “The instructor encouraged students’ participation”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 4.00 5.00 4.9091 .30151
Traditional 19 4.00 5.00 4.6842 .47757
Online 45 3.00 5.00 4.3111 .73306

Table 20
Student Comments on Instructors’ Encouragement of Students to Participate
Flipped “He keeps us involved and answers questions and concerns we have.”
“I could feel very close interaction with the teacher. He always encourages
students to be more participative.”
“[He] is skilled at making students feel comfortable in class and constantly
encourages participation.”
Traditional “I noticed that he seemed to have to change the way he presented his lectures
somewhere in the middle of the semester to attempt to get more participation and
enthusiasm from students.”
“….He also encouraged a lot of student participation which is good.”
Online “He encourages students…to participate in class discussions that are very
interesting and intriguing.”
“During discussions, he created questions that helped us think about the reading
and how it is applicable in our lives.”

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

93
The fourth statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor provided a
good atmosphere for learning.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have
similar perceptions toward their respective instructors with regard to the fourth statement.
However, students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this
regard with all of them strongly agreeing to it (M=5, SD=0), followed by students in the
traditional instruction method (M=4.63, SD=0.50), and lastly by students in the online instruction
method (M=4.17, SD=0.80). Student responses to the open ended questions in this survey
supported this finding (see Table 22).

Table 21
Mean Scores for “The instructor provided a good atmosphere for learning”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 5.00 5.00 5.0000 0.00000
Traditional 19 4.00 5.00 4.6316 .49559
Online 46 2.00 5.00 4.1739 .79734

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

94
Table 22
Student Comments on Instructor Providing a Good Atmosphere for Learning
Flipped “Connects well with students.”
“His passion for his subject is contagious, and class is always interesting.”
He has a very fun and interactive teaching style that keeps student’s attention.
He is also kind and fair, it is easy to talk to him.”
“He ‘psychologically’ motivates students to study well.”
Traditional “He makes the class fun and entertaining. He knows what he is talking about
and he tries to relate what we are learning to our lives. He is a very funny and
talkative teacher.”
“Very fun class and his teaching style is very easy to learn.”
“His class is…easy and fun to be in. I learned a lot.”
Online “He is willing to help you. He’s always there to respond to your email.”
“Everything is clearly explained and you know what to expect out of the
course.”
“He gave excellent study guides for the midterm exam and final exam. He lets
you know right off the bat what to expect in this distance class (online class)
and what’s not tolerated.”

The fifth statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor encouraged
me to think for myself.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have similar
perceptions toward their respective instructors with regards to the fifth statement. However,
students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this regard
(M=4.82, SD=0.40), followed by students in the traditional instruction method (M=4.58,
SD=0.51), and lastly by students in the online instruction method (M=4.27, SD=0.69). Student
responses to the open ended questions in this survey supported this finding (see Table 24).

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

95
Table 23
Mean Scores for “The instructor encouraged me to think for myself”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 4.00 5.00 4.8182 .40452
Traditional 19 4.00 5.00 4.5789 .50726
Online 44 3.00 5.00 4.2727 .69428

Table 24
Student Comments on Instructor Encouraging Students to Think for Themselves
Flipped “I think [he] has done a very good job as an instructor in helping me learn,
understand, and apply the information that he taught in this course.”
“[He] continually checked for understanding and would ask for individual
feedback and thoughts.”
Traditional “He taught me a lot of information not only about psychology, but tools I could
use in my real life.”
“He asked a lot of questions that made me think. He never just gave us the
answers.”
Online “…he encourages students to think for themselves which helps them to learn
the subject more thoroughly.”
“He made sure to have us share our own opinions instead of simply agreeing
with other students.”
“He made sure that we all had our own voice and understanding the material he
taught.”

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

96
The sixth statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor graded tests
and assignments fairly.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have similar
perceptions toward their respective instructors with regards to the sixth statement. However,
students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this regard
(M=4.91, SD=0.30), followed by students in the traditional instruction method (M=4.53,
SD=0.51), and lastly by students in the online instruction method (M=4.13, SD=0.96).

Table 25
Mean Scores for “The instructor graded tests and assignments fairly”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 4.00 5.00 4.9091 .30151
Traditional 19 4.00 5.00 4.5263 .51299
Online 46 1.00 5.00 4.1304 .95705

The seventh statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor informed
students of their grades on exams and assignments promptly.” As observed, students for all three
instructional methods have similar perceptions toward their respective instructors with regards to
the seventh statement. However, students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive
perspective in this regard (M=4.55, SD=0.52), followed by students in the online instruction
method (M=4.15, SD=0.79), and lastly by students in the traditional instruction method (M=3.79,
SD=0.98).

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

97
Table 26
Mean Scores for “The instructor informed students of their grades on exams and assignments
promptly”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 4.00 5.00 4.5455 .52223
Traditional 19 2.00 5.00 3.7895 .97633
Online 46 2.00 5.00 4.1522 .78789

The eighth statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor
demonstrated concern for students.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods
have similar perceptions toward their respective instructors with regards to the eighth statement.
However, students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this
regard (M=4.91, SD=0.30), followed by students in the traditional instruction method (M=4.32,
SD=0.67), and lastly by students in the online instruction method (M=4.09, SD=0.76). Student
responses to the open ended questions in this survey supported this finding (see Table 28).

Table 27
Mean Scores for “The instructor demonstrated concern for students”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 4.00 5.00 4.9091 .30151
Traditional 19 3.00 5.00 4.3158 .67104
Online 45 3.00 5.00 4.0889 .76343

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

98
Table 28
Student Comments on Instructor Demonstrating Concern for Students
Flipped “…he is a good teacher and actually cares about the success of his students.”
“As a student, I respect professors that really show that they care about their
students, which encourages me to do better and really understand the material to
perform well in class. [He] does exactly that.”
Traditional “He is a great teacher to have when starting off college as a running start
student. Mainly because he helped us get through many difficulties and
struggles my sister and I faced because we didn’t know what to do.”
“He reminded us due dates to turn in our assignments. He also took care of the
class as we had many difficulties using the online program. He also gave a
quick email responses.”
“Very understanding of students’ schedules and flexible with assignments
within reason.”
Online “He gives constructive responses to everyone’s posts. It makes the online class
feel more interactive rather than just a writing ideas and not getting enough
personal feedback from your instructor. Thank you for that.”
“When students tell him that they could not complete an assignment online due
to technical difficulties, he pushes the due date back so that we have a little bit
more time to complete the assignment.”
“He really is a great teacher because you can tell he really grades our work with
effort because of his feedback and it is appreciated.”

The ninth statement that pertained to the instructor was that “The instructor treated
students fairly.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have similar
perceptions toward their respective instructors with regards to the ninth statement. However,
students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this regard (M=5,
SD=0), followed by students in the traditional instruction method (M=4.58, SD=0.61), and lastly
by students in the online instruction method (M=4.17, SD=0.77).

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

99
Table 29
Mean Scores for “The instructor treated students fairly”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 5.00 5.00 5.0000 0.00000
Traditional 19 3.00 5.00 4.5789 .60698
Online 46 2.00 5.00 4.1739 .76896

Students’ perceptions on the course. Tables 30 to 33 present the descriptive statistics
of the end-of-course survey questions for the students’ perceptions on the course. Overall,
students from the flipped instruction method showed the most positive perspective toward the
course, followed by students from the traditional instruction method, then finally by students
from the online instruction method.
The first statement that pertained to the course was that “The course objectives and
procedures were clear.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have similar
perceptions toward the course with regards to the first statement, which was positive. However,
students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this regard
(M=4.64, SD=0.50), followed by students in the traditional instruction method (M=4.53,
SD=0.51), and lastly by students in the online instruction method (M=4.30, SD=0.84). Student
responses to the open ended questions in this survey supported this finding (see Table 31).

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

100
Table 30
Mean Scores for “The course objectives and procedures were clear”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 4.00 5.00 4.6364 .50452
Traditional 19 4.00 5.00 4.5263 .51299
Online 46 1.00 5.00 4.3043 .83983

The second statement that pertained to the course was that “The course was well
organized.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods have similar perceptions
toward the course with regards to the second statement, which was positive. However, students
in the traditional instruction method had the most positive perspective in this regard (M=4.53,
SD=0.61), followed by students in the flipped instruction method (M=4.45, SD=0.69), and lastly
by students in the online instruction method (M=4.39, SD=0.68).

Table 31
Mean Scores for “The course was well organized”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 3.00 5.00 4.4545 .68755
Traditional 19 3.00 5.00 4.5263 .61178
Online 46 2.00 5.00 4.3913 .68242

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

101
The third statement that pertained to the course was that “The course material was
presented in a clear and effective way.” As observed, students for all three instructional methods
have similar perceptions toward the course with regard to the first statement, which was positive.
However, students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perspective in this
regard (M=4.45, SD=0.69), followed by students in the traditional instruction method (M=4.32,
SD=0.58), and lastly by students in the online instruction method (M=4.22, SD=0.89).

Table 32
Mean Scores for “The course material was presented in a clear and effective way”
Instruction Method N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Flipped 11 3.00 5.00 4.4545 .68755
Traditional 19 3.00 5.00 4.3158 .58239
Online 46 1.00 5.00 4.2174 .89226

Lastly, many students in the flipped and online classes commented on the poor quality of
the software (LaunchPad) utilized for these courses. LaunchPad was a textbook companion site
that allows students to engage in interactive activities, provide reinforcement of information, and
real time assessment of learning. As observed in Table 33 overall students did not have a
positive experience with the software.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

102
Table 33
Student Comments on Course Software
Flipped “The system was not very dependable. The fill in the blanks gave wrong
answers, login failures, etc.”
“Fix things with LaunchPad.”
“Maybe try a new class book and online assignment server. Great concept, but
horrible online server. LaunchPad is horrible…”
Online “LaunchPad was too glitchy.”
“LaunchPad sucks.”
“The Launchpad was a great way to understand a variety of examples for all the
topics in the book. It is also a big help on studying for exams. However the
LaunchPad has so many glitches that it becomes irritating at times. Hopefully,
they make improvements before the next semester starts.”
“I was not a big fan of the Launchpad site where we did majority of our
assignments. It had too many glitches and it seems to not be compatible with
certain web browsers. I also didn’t like the fact that the Launchpad site was
performing maintenance/updates several times when I would log on to do my
assignments, which I had to always adjust/adapt to the changes.”
“The only thing that was just a little troubled was the [online] portion of the
course. Always had problems but the professor was good to extend
assignments/quizzes.”

Findings
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for this study to address the first
research question: “What are the differences in student performance across the online, flipped,
and traditional face-to-face formats of instructional delivery?” The independent variable,
instruction method, included three levels: traditional, online, and flipped. The dependent
variable was the participants’ post-test scores and the covariate was the participants’ pre-test
scores. While the relationship between pre-test and post-test scores was significant (i.e. overall
students in all three groups demonstrated improvement in their knowledge of basic psychology
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

103
concepts), the ANCOVA itself was not statistically significant. As such, there were no
difference in pre-test post-test mean gain scores across the online, flipped, and traditional face-
to-face formats of instructional delivery (i.e. the amount of improvement across the three
methods of instruction was not statistically significant). However, using the final exam data (i.e.
total score on the 40 multiple choice questions and six essay questions), analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted. Results of the ANOVA showed that final exam scores were
significantly higher for participants in the flipped method compared to the traditional method,
and participants in the online method compared to the traditional method. However, no
statistically significant difference in final exam scores was observed between participants in the
flipped method and in the online method.
Additionally, the end of course survey results showed that overall students in all three
courses had positive perceptions of the instructor and course. Specifically, students in the
flipped instruction method had the most positive perceptions, followed by students in the
traditional instruction method, and lastly by students in the online instruction method. However,
for the statement “The instructor informed students of their grades on exams and assignments
promptly,” there was a slight difference in outcome. Students in the flipped instruction method
had the most positive perspective in this regard (M=4.55, SD=0.52), followed by students in the
online instruction method (M=4.15, SD=0.79), and lastly by students in the traditional instruction
method (M=3.79, SD=0.98).
Lastly, students in the flipped and online classes reported negative experiences with the
online textbook companion site LaunchPad.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

104
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The prevalence of online education in institutions of higher learning is rapidly increasing,
resulting in a transformation of the educational landscape. According to the most recent report by
Allen and Seaman (2014), the number of participants taking at least one online course in 2013
increased by over 411,000 to a new total of 7.1 million. Additionally, the proportion of higher
education students taking at least one online course is at an all-time high of 33.5% (Allen &
Seaman, 2014).
As a result of this rapid increase in online education, understanding the relative
effectiveness of online learning environments is an issue of increasing importance to teachers
and administrators at institutions of higher education. Although the literature on the efficacy of
online courses is expansive it is also divided. A large number of empirical studies argue that the
students in online or blended courses perform just as well or better than students in traditional
face-to-face courses and that student satisfaction does not significantly differ across the two
instructional methods (Cao & Sakchutchawan, 2011; Hoch & Dougher, 2011; Kemp & Grieve,
2014; Lim, Morris, & Kupritz, 2007). Other studies report that students in online or blended
courses do not perform as well as students in traditional face-to-face courses and also experience
lower retention rates, decreased student satisfaction, and greater isolation from teachers and
peers (Driscoll, Jicha, Hunt, Tichavsky, & Thompson, 2012; Hoch & Dougher, 2011; Xu &
Jaggars, 2014).
More recently, research has begun to focus on the flipped or inverted educational format,
which falls under the blended education category. The flipped classroom strategy relies on
technology to introduce students to course content outside of the classroom so that students can
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

105
engage with that content at a deeper level inside the classroom (Strayer, 2012). Although in its
early stages, the research on the flipped classroom appears to be positive with findings touting
that it increases student-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction, allows for more
personalized instruction, enhances independent learning skills, improves student-learning
outcomes, maximizes the amount of material taught, and increases student satisfaction (Mason et
al., 2013; Pape et al., 2012; Strayer 2012).
Since the flipped classroom is a relatively new concept, few studies have looked at its
effectiveness in comparison to other instructional formats. In particular there have been no
studies focused on comparing the effect online, flipped, and face-to-face formats have on student
outcomes. Therefore the purpose of this study was to investigate student performance across
three different educational formats: online, flipped, and traditional face-to-face. Additionally,
the study explored student perceptions on the instructor and the course across the three classes.
The research questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the differences in student performance across the online, flipped, and
traditional face-to-face formats of instructional delivery?
2. What are the differences in student perceptions of the instructor and the course across
the online, flipped, and traditional instructional formats?
Data for this study were acquired from three different introductory psychology courses at
a community college in Hawaii. The same instructor, using the same textbook taught all three
sections concurrently in the Fall 2014 semester. Results from a demographic survey, pre-/post-
test, final exam, and an end of course survey was collected and analyzed.
In this chapter, findings and limitations of this study will be discussed. Implications of
these results are explored and recommendations for future practice and research are offered. The
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

106
study will conclude with final thoughts on the flipped classroom design in relation to traditional
and online instructional formats.
Discussion of Findings
This section begins with a discussion of the demographics of the students who were part
of the study. It is followed by a discussion of the findings from the analysis of student
performance and perception across the three teaching approaches.
Student Demographic Data
The analyses of the demographic characteristics of the students in this study show little
differences in characteristics of the students in each of the three course options. Differences that
did exist (i.e. on-line students were more likely to be part time students and/or employed) are
typical of the findings from similar studies of this nature.
Race or ethnicity. Across the three groups, the majority of the participants reported
being Asian or Mixed (two or more races). Participants in the traditional group and the online
group were very similar in regard to race/ethnicity, except that the online group had a higher
percentage of participants identifying as White. The flipped group was different from both the
traditional and online groups with less diversity overall. However, this can likely be explained
by the small sample size (N = 13). Overall the participants as a whole in this study were similar
to the college’s student diversity which consists of: 36% Asian, 18% Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian,
12% Caucasian, 2% Pacific Islander, 12% Mixed, and 20% other. Thus, the participants in this
study were representative of the naturally occurring racial diversity across the classes on this
campus. However, this does not ensure the findings are generalizable to other colleges or
universities.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

107
Participants’ reason for choosing a specific type of instruction. Fifty-two percent of
the participants in the traditional group reported selecting that type of course because they
“learned best in that type of environment.” In comparison, only 3% of participants from the
online group and no participants from the flipped course reported they “learned best in that type
of environment.” For the online and flipped groups, the majority of participants chose that type
of course for reasons of convenience (i.e. schedule, location, and time conflicts). These findings
are similar to previous research in which participants in traditional face-to-face courses choose
that type of instructional format because they believe that environment is most conducive to their
learning (Burns, 2013; Simon, Jackson, & Maxwell, 2013). On the other hand, participants who
choose to enroll in online or blended courses choose that type of instruction for convenience
reasons despite knowing that the environment may not be the best for their learning (Burns,
2013; Simon et al., 2013).
Participants’ prior experience with an online or blended course. Sixty-three percent
of the participants in the traditional group reported having no prior experience with an online or
blended class. In comparison, 22% of the participants from the online group and 46% of the
participants from the flipped group reported no prior experience with an online or blended
course. These findings are similar to previous research in which participants that enroll in an
online or blended course are more likely to have prior experience with an online or blended
course than participants who enroll in a traditional face-to-face course (Driscoll et al., 2012;
Drouin, Hile, Vartanian, & Webb, 2013). As reported above, participants who chose to enroll in
traditional face-to-face courses do so because they feel they learn best in that type of
environment, so expectedly they may be averse to trying an online learning environment.
Relatedly, those participants who have already had a successful learning experience in an online
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

108
learning environment are more likely to continue to enroll in online courses because it is no
longer a novel and ambiguous experience.
Student academic status and work status. Prior research has found that participants in
online courses are taking fewer credit hours and working full-time (Cao & Sakchutchawan,
2011; Coates & Humphreys, 2003; Radford & Weko, 2011). This study found similar results
with 85% of the traditional participants reporting full-time academic status in comparison to the
31% of the online participants. Corresponding to this finding, only 15% of the participants in the
traditional group worked full-time in comparison to the 58% of the participants in the online
group who worked full-time. These academic status and work status results coincides with the
prior finding that participants who enrolled in the online course chose that type of course because
of scheduling and time conflicts. Many times the only option for participants who need to work
full-time are taking online courses because it not only fits with their schedule but taking less
credit hours allows them to manage their other responsibilities (i.e. work and family).
One would expect that the participants in the flipped group would be similar to the online
group. However, although the flipped participants were more similar to the traditional
participants in terms of academic status (i.e. more participants were full-time than part-time) they
were more similar to the online participants in terms of work status (i.e. most participants
worked at least part-time or full-time and very few were unemployed). The similarities in work
status between the flipped participants and the online participants can be explained by the
structure of the class. The flipped course was an accelerated course and the in class portion was
scheduled on Saturdays. Having an accelerated course (i.e. completed in half the time of a
regular course) allowed the participants to take a full load of credits by relieving their course
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

109
load half way through the semester. Additionally, the flexibility of being able to meet on
Saturdays allowed the participants to work and take other classes during the weekdays.
Age. Although most participants across the three groups reported being between the ages
of 18 and 24, participants in the online group reported being slightly older than the traditional
participants. Thirty-one percent of the online participants reported being between the ages of 25
and 39 in comparison to the 15% of the traditional participants reporting being between the ages
of 25 to 39. Previous research supports this finding and has also found that participants that take
online courses are usually older (Cao & Sakchutchawan, 2011; Driscoll et al., 2012; McCarty,
Bennett, & Carter, 2013).
Highest level of educational attainment. The participants in the online group appeared
to have a higher level of degree attainment with 49% having some college experience but no
degree and 15% having either an associate’s degree or a bachelor’s degree. In comparison, 37%
of the participants in the traditional group had some college experience with no degree and 4%
having an associate’s degree with none having a bachelor’s degree. These educational
attainment results may be associated with the previous finding in which the participants in the
online group were older than the participants in the traditional group. Therefore, the online
participants may have been in college longer at the time of this study (i.e. they were not in their
first semester of college) or they may have been seeking a second degree.
Participants’ reason for taking the psychology 100 course. Twenty-six percent of
participants in the traditional group reported taking the psychology course for “personal growth
or fun” and 70% reported taking the course for work related reasons, toward a certificate, toward
an Associates degree, or toward a Bachelor’s degree. In comparison none of the participants in
the flipped group and 7% of the participants in the online group reported taking the course for
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

110
“personal growth or fun.” Understanding the participants’ motivation for taking this course was
critical to understanding the results of this study. Since learning is highly affected by motivation
and effort to do well, participants who are invested in the course (e.g. the course is a degree
requirement) are likely to do better than participants who take the course for “personal growth or
fun.”
Finding 1: No Difference in Student Performance Across Instructional Formats
Results of the ANCOVA revealed that although there was a statistical significance
between pre-test and post-test scores for the whole population, the differences were not
statistically significant when compared across the three instruction methods. In other words
there was no difference in pre-test post-test mean gain scores across the traditional, flipped, and
online groups. This finding is congruent with previous studies that also reported no significance
difference in student performance (Cao & Sakchutchawan, 2011; Larson & Sung, 2009) across
different instructional formats. However, at a minimum this finding suggests that there was
significant improvement across all three groups in regards to their knowledge of basic
psychology concepts (as measured by the 40 multiple choice questions in the pre-test and post-
test) which could indicate some level of learning in all three courses regardless of the
instructional format.
Finding 2: Flipped Participants Outperform Traditional Participants
In contrast to the previous finding, results of the ANOVA revealed that participants in the
flipped course outperformed participants in the traditional group (in regard to final exam scores).
It is important to point out that the final exam scores consisted of the 40 multiple-choice
questions plus six essay questions (whereas the pre-test and post-test was based only on the 40
multiple choice questions). Since there were no differences in student performance across the
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

111
three groups on the 40 multiple-choice questions, the difference in their final exam scores must
be attributed to their performance on the essay questions.
According to Reiner, Bothell, Sudweeks, and Wood (2002), essay questions assess a
participant’s understanding of and ability to synthesize subject matter content. Essay questions
also test the participants’ abilities to reason, create, analyze, and evaluate thus are much more
challenging then multiple-choice questions which simply asks participants to select a response
(Reiner et al., 2002). If this assumption is true then it appears that the participants in the flipped
group on average had a better understanding of the subject matter and/or were able to express
their thoughts in writing better than the participants in the traditional group.
This deeper understanding of the subject matter could be attributed to the fact that
participants in the flipped classroom group engaged in more in-class activities such as debating
issues, practicing specific psychological skills, and in-depth reflections on weekly concepts
which promoted collaboration, deeper level thinking, and learning. In comparison, participants
in the traditional group had minimal time to engage in in-class activities because class time was
used for lecturing instead. Therefore, participants in the traditional class did not have as many
opportunities to check their understanding or engage in hands-on activities that could solidify
their understanding of difficult concepts.
Furthermore, as stated in Chapter 1, a limitation of this study was that the curriculum
across all three courses were not the same. Although some of the assignments between the
traditional participants and flipped participants were similar (e.g. LearningCurve assignments,
quizzes, and class presentation) there were some differences. The traditional participants needed
to complete weekly journals, had a mid-term and final exam, and received points for class
participation. On the other hand the flipped group had to complete a research paper, only had a
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

112
final exam, and received points for classroom activities. Therefore, the differences between the
types of tasks completed in the traditional course and the flipped course may have affected the
participants’ ability to learn.
Finally, participants in the flipped group may have performed better on the final exam
simply due to motivation. Twenty-six percent of participants in the traditional group reported
taking the psychology course for “personal growth or fun” in comparison to the flipped
participants (0%). Participants who reported taking the course for personal growth or fun may
not have put forth their best effort in the final exam or the overall course as they may not have
been invested in learning the course content and doing well in the class. Whereas almost all of
the participants in the flipped course reported taking the course for work related reasons, toward
an Associates degree, or toward a Bachelor’s degree. Thus, these participants may have been
much more invested in their learning.
Finding 3: Online Participants Outperform Traditional Participants
Results of the ANOVA also revealed that participants in the online course outperformed
participants in the traditional group (in regard to final exam scores). Several studies have
compared student outcomes between the online instructional formats and traditional instructional
formats and have found mixed results (Bernard et al., 2004; Means et al., 2009; Lack, 2013). In
other words, some researchers report that online participants perform better than their traditional
counterparts, while other researchers claim that traditional participants perform better then their
online counterparts (Driscoll et al., 2012; McCarty et al., 2013).
Several student factors (e.g. motivation and level of self-discipline) as well as course
environment (e.g. structure of the course, level of technical support, or level interaction) all
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

113
contribute to student performance and learning in online courses (Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006).
Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain the true cause(s) for this finding.
However, there are some assumptions that can be made. First, similar to the previous
finding, participants in the online group may have performed better on the final exam simply due
to motivation or effort. Twenty-six percent of participants in the traditional group reported
taking the psychology course for “personal growth or fun” in comparison to their online
counterparts (7%). Participants who reported taking the course for personal growth or fun may
not have put forth their best effort in the final exam or the overall course as they may not have
been invested in learning the course content and doing well in the class. Whereas almost all of
the participants in the online course reported taking the course for work related reasons, toward a
certificate, toward an Associates degree, or toward a Bachelor’s degree. Thus, these participants
may have been much more invested in their learning.
Second, participants in the online group were slightly older and had a slightly higher
level of degree attainment in comparison to their traditional counterparts. Logan, Augustyniak,
and Rees (2002) report that participants in online courses are required to take responsibility of
their learning and therefore maturity and self-discipline is necessary for success. As older
participants the online participants may have had a stronger fundamental ability to manage their
time, complete tasks, and engage in self-directed learning, all of which contribute to student
success.
Third, Xu and Jaggars (2014) report that participants with strong academic profiles do
better in online courses. Therefore, as participants with a higher level of degree attainment, they
may have entered the course with more academic preparation than their traditional counterparts
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

114
and the introductory psychology course may not have been a difficult course for them to
complete, thus leading to better overall performance on the final exam.
Finally, although some of the assignments between the traditional participants and online
participants were similar (e.g. LearningCurve assignments, quizzes, mid-term and final exam)
there were some differences. The traditional participants needed to complete a class
presentation, weekly journals, and received points for class participation. On the other hand the
online group had to complete message boards and weekly video quizzes. Therefore, these
differences between the types of tasks completed in the traditional course and the online course
may have affected the participants’ ability to learn.
Finding 4: Flipped Participants and Online Participants Perform Equally Well
Lastly, results of the ANOVA also revealed that participants in the flipped course
performed equally as well to the participants in the online course (in regards to final exam
scores). Since the flipped classroom design is a type of blended course (a course in which 30-
79% of the course content is delivered online while the remaining content is delivered in the
classroom) this finding is in line with previous research reporting no significant difference in
student performance between the two instructional formats (Larson & Sung, 2009; Lim et al.,
2014). However, it can be concluded that the flipped format is equally as efficient as the online
format.
Finding 5: Overall Positive Student Perception of the Instructor and Course
The end of course survey results showed that overall participants in all three courses had
a positive perception of the instructor and course. However, participants in the flipped
instruction method had the most positive perceptions, followed by participants in the traditional
instruction method, and lastly by participants in the online instruction method.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

115
Although the literature is mixed in regard to student perceptions this finding is in line
with several previous research studies that have indicated that overall student perceptions of
online courses tend to be more negative than student perceptions of traditional courses (Cao &
Sakchutchawan, 2011; Kemp & Grieve, 2014; Simon et al., 2013).
Additionally, several studies have also reported that participants prefer blended classes to
traditional and online courses because it provides the opportunity to obtain regular support and to
interact with peers and the instructor, while maintaining the convenience and independence of
the online format (Hoch & Dougher, 2011; Simon et al., 2013). Whereas a blended course could
take many forms (e.g. lectures continued to be given during designated in class time and
assignments are done through computer technology), the flipped classroom design is a unique
type of blended course that: (1) promotes interactive group learning activities inside the
classroom (i.e. during designated class time); and (2) direct computer-based individual
instruction outside the classroom (i.e. lectures, videos, or reading material) (Bishop & Verleger,
2013). This course design maximizes several factors critical for learning: (1) student-content
interaction (by allowing participants to navigate the content at their own pace); (2) student-
student interaction; (3) student-instructor interaction; (4) cooperative learning; (5) problem-based
learning; and (6) active learning (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Therefore, it is not unexpected that
the flipped participants had the most positive perceptions of the instructor and the course.
The main focus of the end of course survey was to gain information on how participants’
perceptions of the instructor varied across the three different instructional formats. The online
course had the least positive perceptions of the instructor and the course; however, these
participants lacked the human and social component of the classroom that the traditional and
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

116
flipped groups were provided. Participants in the traditional and flipped sections raved that the
instructor was:
Easy to connect with. Very understanding and fun.
Skilled at making participants feel comfortable in class. He has a very interactive and fun
teaching style that keeps students’ attention.
Charismatic and easy to be around.
Funny. His teaching style makes it easy to learn. I didn’t fall asleep once.
However, participants in the online group were not privy to these instructor’s strengths and
therefore made the following comments:
[He] should meet the class, at least once, and discuss the syllabus; and/or, the virtual
barrier of an online class, since [the school] is a community college. Shouldn’t teachers
and participants work hand-in-hand?
I wish he could do online lectures instead to help us learn.
I didn’t get to speak with him much or see how he interacted with others considering it
was an online course.
This class was more self-taught and there is little interaction with peers and teachers.
Not being able to interact physically with their peers and the instructor as well as not being able
to build that relationship with the instructor negatively impacted their perceptions of the
instructor and the course. The virtual barrier did not allow the instructor to utilize his most
valuable teaching asset — his personality — with the students in the online course.
Finding 6: Importance of the Course Management System (CMS)
A course management system is an e-learning platform that provides web-based,
integrated, interactive tools that allow participants and teachers a variety of ways to exchange
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

117
information. Participants in the online and flipped course reported negative experiences with the
CMS utilized in this study (LaunchPad). Participants commented that the software was
unreliable, “glitchy,” and had constant maintenance updates that conflicted with online
assignments.
Kim, Trimi, Park, and Rhee (2012) purport that there are three system quality measures
that positively influence user satisfaction, which, in turn, increases the benefits of using a CMS.
The three quality measures are: technical qualities, information quality, and instructional quality.
The technical quality factors include ease of use, functionality, and reliability of the system.
When the technical quality of the CMS is low then student satisfaction is negatively impacted
and in turn so is student performance. Therefore, student performance and student perceptions in
the online and flipped courses may have been affected by the technical challenges that stemmed
from the low quality software.
Limitations
In addition to the limitations and delimitations mentioned in Chapter 1, while conducting
this study, another limitation was recognized. Due to an unfortunate error on the part of the
researcher, the demographic data could not be matched to the pre-/post-test and final exam score
data. Therefore, results of the study could not be further analyzed to identify potential
moderating effects such as age, gender, or race/ethnicity.
Implications
Several studies have compared student performance across the traditional, blended, and
online instructional formats, but this is the first study that utilized a three-way comparison across
the traditional, flipped, and online instructional formats. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the flipped
classroom has recently emerged in higher education and appears to have gained much attention
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

118
among researchers as a new strategy to improve learning experiences and increase student
engagement. According to Roehl et al. (2013), a flipped classroom design allows the teacher to
provide a wide range of learner-centered opportunities in class for greater teacher-to-student
mentoring and peer-to-peer collaboration, increasing student engagement and thus improving
student performance.
Additionally, in their survey of the literature on the flipped classroom, Bishop and
Verleger (2013) reported that only 10 out of the 24 studies they found met the criteria as a true
flipped classroom. With such minimal research, the authors recommended that future research
on the flipped classroom should employ controlled studies that objectively examine student
performance throughout a semester.
The findings from this research study not only add to the existing body of knowledge on
the flipped classroom but also support the claim that the flipped classroom is an instructional
design that increases student performance as well enhances participants perceptions of the
instructor and the course. The findings in this study indicate that participants in the flipped
classroom perform better than or as well as their online and traditional counterparts.
Recommendations for Practice
Several recommendations for practice resulted from this study. First, many participants
who enroll in traditional courses have never experienced an online or hybrid course and therefore
are hesitant to try a new learning environment. In order to get participants acquainted with
learning in an online environment, higher education institutions should provide a one credit
“Introduction to Online Learning” course that is not taken for a grade (i.e. credit or no credit).
Offering a low stakes course in online learning will allow participants an opportunity to learn
about the different learning options that are available without the risk of not doing well in the
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

119
course. Participants may discover that an online learning environment may be beneficial to their
success thus opening up more opportunities to further their learning.
Secondly, instructors that want to maximize student learning should experiment with the
flipped classroom design. This study provided evidence that the flipped classroom design is
effective in promoting student success and student satisfaction. However, it is important that
instructors who decide to implement a flipped classroom design understand the importance of the
student-centered learning theories (e.g. learning styles, peer assisted and cooperative learning,
and problem based learning) that are fundamental to creating a successful flipped course (Bishop
& Verleger, 2013). Simply assigning readings outside of class and having discussions in class is
not utilizing the flipped classroom design. The center of the flipped classroom design is the in-
class activities — and these activities need to be well planned and executed conscientiously.
Third, the online course in this study utilized an asynchronous online system. However,
the students in the online section reported less positive perceptions of the instructor and the
course in part because they felt disconnected to the instructor and were not privy to his
charismatic and fun teaching style. Hence, instructors who teach online should utilize
synchronous instructional tools and also leverage the use of video recordings so that participants
feel like they are getting to know the instructor and are still able to have that physical connection
with him/her.
Lastly, various CMSs, such as Blackboard,WebCT, eCollege, and Desire2Learn, create
Internet-based learning environments that enable technology-oriented instructors to extend the
boundaries of course. However, technical qualities, information quality, and instructional quality
of the e-learning experience all influence student satisfaction and student performance. In this
study, instructional quality, which includes availability, responsiveness, and mastery of subject
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

120
matter, appeared to be high but the technical qualities of the CMS was an issue (Bishop &
Verleger, 2013). It is very important that instructors and institutions take the time to research
highly rated CMSs before purchasing the software or utilizing it in the classroom. Faulty CMSs
not only lead to unsatisfied participants but could also lead to lower student outcomes.
Recommendations for Research
Several recommendations for research also resulted from this study. First, there have
been many studies comparing student outcomes across the traditional, blended, and online
formats, but very few studies explore the performance gaps within certain subgroups. Although
this study set out to do this, the researcher was unable to correlate the demographic data to the
test or end of course survey data. Since Hawaii’s racial and ethnic diversity is unique, a future
study (similar to this one) that determines if ethnicity is a factor in explaining differences in
performance would be useful for Hawaii’s higher education system. Other factors that should be
considered are degree major, gender, and age.
Similarly, Driscoll et al. (2012) state that a failure to control for student aptitude when
looking at student outcomes can lead to unreliable results. This study did not take into
consideration prior GPA or standardized aptitude test (SAT) scores and therefore the flipped
participants may have started the course with a stronger academic background to begin with.
Future research studies should ensure that this factor is controlled for.
Furthermore, the results of this study could have been supplemented with qualitative
evidence such as student interviews and instructor interviews. Future research should
incorporate a qualitative component and investigate things such as: instructor effort and
responsibilities for each type of class, student perception of an accelerated course, students
reasons for withdrawal or transferring.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

121
Lastly, this study can be used as a model to expand current research on the flipped
classroom design in comparison to other instructional formats. The results of this study cannot
be generalized to other subject areas so future research should aim to pilot a flipped classroom in
other subject areas. Xu and Jaggars (2014) found that performance gaps between online courses
and their face-to-face counterparts were most significant in the social sciences and applied
professions, with online participants performing worse. They imply that these subject areas
require a high degree of hands-on demonstration and practice, making it more difficult for
instructors to teach and students to learn in an online environment. Exploring which types of
courses would be most successful in a flipped classroom design would provide evidence to its
efficacy, thus encouraging more instructors and institutions of higher education to utilize this up
and coming strategy.
Summary
This study set out to determine if there were any differences in student performance and
student perceptions across three instructional formats: traditional, flipped, and online. The
flipped classroom was found to produce better student outcomes than the traditional class and
was also found to be as effective when compared to the online class. Additionally, the flipped
classroom produced more positive student perceptions of the instructor and course in comparison
to its traditional and online counterparts.
To meet the demands of higher education (e.g. draconian budget constraints, influx of
non-traditional students), colleges and universities must continually assess innovative approaches
to teaching in order to promote student learning. The development of the flipped classroom as a
credible alternative to traditional and online courses provides an opportunity for instructors to
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

122
harness this new technique in order to promote collaborative and problem-based learning,
increase student retention, and improve student learning.
Institutions and instructors are responsible to maximize the student’s experience and the
flipped classroom provides an opportunity for students to benefit from both the flexibility of
online learning and the greater engagement experienced in traditional face-to-face classrooms.
Although further research is needed to understand fully the benefits of the flipped classroom,
thus far the literature is continuing to show that it is a superior method of instruction. Instructors
willing to invest the time to transform their current traditional or online course into a true flipped
classroom will undoubtedly wreak positive results.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

123
REFERENCES
Al‐Qahtani, A. A., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on
students’ achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
29(3), 220-234.
Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (1999). Interactive statistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class difference$: Online education in the United States, 2010.
Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2012). Going the distance: Online education in the United States.
Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States.
Oakland, CA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved
from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web‐
based e‐learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 36(2), 217-235.
Amaral, K. E., & Shank, J. D. (2010). Enhancing student learning and retention with blended
learning class guides. Educause Quarterly, 33(4), n4.
Aslanian, C. B., & Clinefelter, D. L. (2013). Online college students, 2013: Comprehensive data
on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: The Learning House.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

124
Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2011). Trends in for-profit postsecondary education: Enrollment, prices,
student aid and outcomes. New York, NY: College Board.
Bejerano, A. R. (2008). The genesis and evolution of online degree programs: Who are they for
and what have we lost along the way? Communication Education, 57(3), 408-414.
Bell, B. S., & Federman, J. E. (2013). E-learning in postsecondary education. The Future of
Children, 23(1), 165-185.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., . . . Huang, B.
(2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-
analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research.
In Proceedings of the 2013 ASEE National Conference. Washington, D.C.: American
Society for Engineering Education.
Bland, L. (2006). Apply flip/inverted classroom model in electrical engineering to establish life-
long learning. In Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference. Washington, D.C.:
American Society for Engineering Education.
Bowen, W. G. (2013). Higher education in the digital age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Bowen, W. G., Nygren, T. I., Lack, K. A., & Chingos, M. M. (2013). Online learning in higher
education: Randomized trial compares hybrid learning to traditional course. Education
Next, 13, 58-64.
Burns, B. A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of online courses in a graduate adolescence education
program. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 13-25.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

125
Cao, Y., & Sakchutchawan, S. (2011). Online vs. traditional MBA: An empirical study of
students’ characteristics, course satisfaction, and overall success. Journal of Human
Resources & Adult Learning, 7(2), 1-12.
Capella University. (2014). Capella University website. Retrieved from http://www.capella.edu
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of
distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning
Point Associates.
Clobridge, A. (2012, August 30). MOOCs and the changing face of higher education. Medford,
NJ: Information Today. Retrieved from
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/MOOCs-and-the-Changing-Face-of-
Higher-Education-84681.asp
Coates, D., & Humphreys, B. R. (2003). An inventory of learning at a distance in economics.
Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 196-207.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronk, B. C. (2002). How to use SPSS statistics: A step-by-step guide to analysis and
interpretation. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed
learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4-36.
Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill Jr., P. D. (2003). Pre-test post-test designs and measurement of
change. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 20(2), 159-165.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

126
Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses
deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an
online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4),
312-331.
Drouin, M., Hile, R. E., Vartanian, L. R., & Webb, J. (2013). Student preferences for online
lecture formats: Does prior experience matter? Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
14(3), 151-162.
Educause. (2013). 7 things you should know about MOOCS II. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-you-should-know-
about-moocs-ii
Fink, A. (Ed.). (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fleck, J. (2012). Blended learning and learning communities: Opportunities and challenges.
Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 398-411.
Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a
practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 471-485.
Foundation for Excellence in Education. (2012). Digital learning report card 2012. Tallahassee,
FL: Author. Retrieved from http://digitallearningnow.com/report-card-2012/
Fredrickson, N., Reed, P., & Clifford, V. (2005). Evaluating web-supported learning versus
lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Higher Education,
50(4), 645-664.
Friedman, H. H. (2011). Crises in education: Online learning as a solution. Creative Education,
2(3), 156-163.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

127
Harris, D. A. (1999). Online distance education in the United States. IEEE Communications
Magazine, 37(3), 87-91.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2005). Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and
the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 59-64.
Hoch, W. A., & Dougher, T. A. (2011). Student perceptions of hybrid vs. traditional courses: A
case study in plant identification. NACTA Journal, 55(4), 8-13.
Holmberg, B. (1995). The evolution of the character and practice of distance education. Open
Learning, 10(2), 47-53.
Jones, N., & Lau, A. M. S. (2010). Blending learning: Widening participation in higher
education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 405-416.
Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kemp, N., & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates’ opinions and
test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1278.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278
Kim, K., Trimi, S., Park, H., & Rhee, S. (2012). The impact of CMS quality on the outcomes of
e-learning systems in higher education: An empirical study. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education, 10(4), 575-587.
Lack, K. A. (2013). Current status of research on online learning in postsecondary education.
New York, NY: Ithaka S+R. Retrieved from
http://sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/reports/ithaka-sr-online-learning-postsecondary-
education-may2012.pdf
Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education.
Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

128
Larson, D. K., & Sung, C. H. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended
versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31-42.
Lepi, K. (2013). How countries began trying distance learning. Seattle, WA: Edudemic.
Retrieved from http://edudemic.com/2013/02/united-kingdoms-history-of-distance-
learning/
Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in
instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 11(2), 27-42.
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic
study of the published literature, 2008-2012. International Review of Research in Open &
Distance Learning, 14(3), 201-227.
Logan, E., Augustyniak, R., & Rees, A. (2002). Distance education as different education: A
student-centered investigation of distance learning experience. Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science, 43, 32-42.
Long, C. (2013). The changing face of higher education: The future of the traditional university
experience. Kennedy School Review, 13, 58-62.
Lyke, J., & Frank, M. (2012). Comparison of student learning outcomes in online and traditional
classroom environments in a psychology course. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
39(3), 245-250.
Machtmes, K., & Asher, J. W. (2000). A meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in
distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 27-46.
Maloney, J. F., & Oakley, B. (2010). Scaling online education: Increasing access to higher
education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 55-70.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

129
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. IEEE
Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430-435.
McCarty, C., Bennett, D., & Carter, S. (2013). Teaching college microeconomics: Online vs
traditional classroom instruction. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 11(5), 1-13.
McLaughlin, J. E., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., Davidson, C. A., Glatt, D. M., Roth, M. T.,
& Mumper, R. J. (2013). Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in
a flipped satellite classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(9), 196.
doi:10.5688/ajpe779196
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, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Milman, N. B. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used?
Distance Learning, 9(3), 85-87.
Moller, L., Robison, D., & Huett, J. B. (2012). Unconstrained learning: Principles for the next
generation of distance education. In L. Moller & J. B. Huett (Eds.), The next generation
of distance education: Unconstrained learning (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Springer.
MOOCS University. (2014). MOOCS directory. Retrieved from http://www.moocs.co
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance
learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2),
129-135.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

130
National Center for Academic Transformation. (2008). Six models for course redesign. Saratoga
Springs, NY: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.thencat.org/PlanRes/R2R_ModCrsRed.htm
Nora, A., & Snyder, B. P. (2009). Technology and higher education: The impact of e-learning
approaches on student academic achievement, perceptions and persistence. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 10(1), 3-19.
Olmanson, J. (2011). Emerging technologies in distance education. Educational Media
International, 48(1), 67-68.
Pape, L., Sheehan, T., & Worrell, C. (2012). How to do more with less: Lessons from online
learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(6), 18-22.
Pappano, L. (2012, November 4). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times, p. ED26.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-
online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2006-07. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009044
Rabe-Hemp, C., Woollen, S., & Humiston, G. S. (2009). A comparative analysis of student
engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning settings.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 207-218.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

131
Radford, A. W., & Weko, T. (2011). Learning at a distance: Undergraduate enrollment in
distance education courses and degree programs (NCES 2012-154). Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012154.pdf
Reiner, C. M., Bothell, T. W., Sudweeks, R. R., & Wood, B. (2002). Preparing effective essay
questions. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to
engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family &
Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49.
Salkind, N. J. (2012). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Excel 2010 edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scherrer, C. R. (2011). Comparison of an introductory level undergraduate statistics course
taught with traditional, hybrid, and online delivery methods. INFORMS Transactions on
Education, 11(3), 106-110.
Simon, D., Jackson, K., & Maxwell, K. (2013). Traditional versus online instruction: Faculty
resources impact strategies for course delivery. Business Education & Accreditation,
5(1), 107-116.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation
and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore
(Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (pp. 13-45).
Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

132
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., &
Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tsai, C. (2010). Facilitating students to earn computing certificates via blended learning in online
problem solving environment: A cross-course-orientation comparison. International
Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 6(2), 11-23.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.
University of Phoenix. (2014). University of Phoenix website. Retrieved from
http://www.phoenix.edu
U.S. News & World Report (2012). Best online programs. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education
U.S. News & World Report (2014). Online learning glossary. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/articles/2014/04/01/online-learning-
glossary
U.S. News & World Report (2015). Best online programs. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education
Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2000-2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
Wilson, S. G. (2013). The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an undergraduate
statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 193-199.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

133
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses:
Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher
Education, 85(5), 633-659.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Bäcker, E. M., & Vogt, S. (2009). Review of distance education research
(2000 to 2008): Analysis of research areas, methods, and authorship patterns.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 21-50.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical
analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. The Teachers College
Record, 107(8), 1836-1884.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

134
APPENDIX A
COURSE SYLLABI
Traditional Course Syllabus

COURSE: Psychology 100 Survey of Psychology
CREDITS: 3 credits
TIME: T/R 1:45 – 3:00 pm
Office Hours: Tuesday, 1:00 – 1:30 pm or 4:30 – 5:15pm
Thursday, 4:30 – 5:15 pm
Saturday, 3:00 – 4:00 pm
Email or by appointment
DATES: 08/25/2014 – 12/19/2014

CATALOG DESCRIPTION
PSY 100 focuses on basic concepts and principles of psychology in the areas of individual
differences, motivation, emotion, perception, learning, methodology, tests and measurement,
history, abnormal, physiology, and applied psychology. This course emphasizes lectures,
multimedia presentations, discussions, and experimentation.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the successful completion of this course, the student will be able to:
a) Describe the nature of psychology as a discipline, explaining why psychology is a
science, and listing the primary objectives of psychology: describing, understanding,
predicting, and controlling behavior and mental processes.
b) Identify the concepts, language, and major theories of the discipline to account for
psychological phenomena.
c) Compare and contrast the major perspectives of psychology: behavioral, neuroscience,
cognitive, evolutionary, humanistic, psychodynamic, and socio-cultural.
d) Identify overarching themes and persistent questions in psychology.
e) Describe the basic methodology of the science of psychology, explaining different
research methods used by psychologists.
f) Use critical thinking and reasoning effectively, identifying and evaluating the source,
context, and credibility of information, evaluating popular media reports regarding
psychological research.
g) State how psychological principles can be used to explain social issues and inform public
policy and recognize that socio-cultural contexts may influence the application of
psychological principles in solving social problems.
h) Apply psychological concepts, theories, and research findings as these relate to everyday
life.
i) Explain the necessity for ethical behavior in all aspects of the science and practice of
psychology.
j) Communicate effectively, by listening accurately, and actively and articulating ideas
thoughtfully and purposefully.
k) Demonstrate the ability to collaborate effectively.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

135
COURSE TASKS AND ASSESSMENT
How students demonstrate they have met the learning outcomes listed above (and earn points
toward their grade in Psychology 100):

250 points One Mid-term (worth 100 points) and One Final exam (worth 150 points). Both
the final exam and the mid-term consist of answering two sets of questions in
depth. The first set of questions will have to be answered from several of the
following perspectives: behavioral, neuroscience, cognitive, evolutionary,
humanistic, psychodynamic, and socio-cultural. The second set of questions will
be about some of the key issues in psychology, such as nature versus nurture,
conscious versus unconscious, observable versus internal, free will versus
determinism, or individual differences versus universal principles. The final exam
will also include multiple-choice questions covering the material you’ve learned
throughout the entire semester. The exams are meant to show you have met
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J.

275 points LearningCurve and Quizzes. There will be 43 LearningCurve assignments and
14 multiple-choice quizzes to test your knowledge of each chapter. You can
retake each quiz as many times as you wish. Your highest quiz score will be
recorded into the grade book.

200 points Semi-Weekly Insight Journal (SWIJ) (worth 25 points per entry--175 points).
See attached instructions on how to do the SWIJ. Each journal entry is due on the
last day of the two chapters covered. I will ask you to share your insights with the
class throughout the semester so have your journal entry with you at every class.
At the end of the semester, please add a one-page reflection on what you learned
from this process (25 points).
Your final SWIJ is due on December 11, 2014.

25 points Library Assignment: Complete library training with librarian by September 30.

150 points Class Presentation (150 pts). Pick a topic that interests you and research it at the
library. Then select one peer-reviewed journal article that you will summarize and
present to the class. Make sure your presentation includes the question(s) asked
by the researcher(s), the method(s) used to answer the question(s), the findings,
and a discussion on the validity and generalizability of the findings. (SLOs A and
E)
DO NOT READ YOUR PRESENTATION! You can use visual or auditory
material to enhance the presentation. Engage your audience with examples, short
videos, artwork, questions, controversial ideas or issues, etc., that can generate
further discussion. Keep in mind that your presentation is to benefit your
audience. Your presentation should be between 5 to 10 minutes long).

100 points Class participation is required and consists of attendance, class discussions,
active participation in class exercises, and promoting a positive atmosphere in the
classroom. Students will lose points for negative, disruptive behaviors such as
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

136
texting or surfing the internet, or leaving the class early. Attendance will be taken
at the beginning of every class so be sure to come on time. Repeated lateness will
also be penalized. (SLOs J and K)

20 points Bonus points: Watch the story of stuff at: http://www.storyofstuff.com/ Click on
“stuff” and write a short reaction paper on it, please emphasize the psychological
aspect of consumption (50-100 words).

GRADES
900-1020 points =A; 800-899 points=B; 700-799 points=C; 600-699 points=D; <600=F.

Keep track of your points and approximate your grade average as you fulfill the course tasks.
Use the point criteria as a checklist before you turn in an assignment!

Maximum Points Your Score
Midterm Exam 100pts
14 Quizzes + LearningCurve 275pts
Library Assignment 25pts
Class Presentation 150pts
Bonus Reaction Paper 20pts
Semi-Weekly Insight Journal (SWIJ) 175pts
Reflection on the SWIJ 25pts
Final Exam 150pts
Class Participation 100pts
Other Bonus Points (TBA) TBA
Total 1,020pts

Learning Resources and Materials
Required Text: Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2014). Psychology in Everyday Life (3rd ed.).
NY: Worth.
Website: https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal
Library: Consult a librarian when you have questions about how to access research
material. The librarian can introduce you to different methods of finding
information related to your topic.

Student Contributions
This syllabus provides information about the structure, content, organization, and requirements
of this course. Read it carefully and ask questions if anything is unclear.

1. You are required to read the assigned chapters in the textbook prior to coming to
class, i.e., come to class prepared.
2. You are required to complete all assigned exercises on Connect by the DUE DATE.
3. Use the criteria on the hand-out as a check for your Weekly Insight Journal.
4. Study for quizzes and exams by reading the chapters, coming to every class, and logging
into the websites to take practice tests or access other information.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

137
5. Avoid coming late to class. Have your cell phone turned off. Ignoring these rules will
affect your participation points.
6. In the event of an absence it is your responsibility to learn the information covered in
class that day and fulfill all assignments.
7. Plagiarism or any other forms of cheating are unacceptable. If confirmed, you will
receive an F for this course. Make sure any sentence copied from ANY source is
properly referenced. For example: “Cultural values vary from place to place and, even
in the same place, from one time to another.” (Myers & DeWall, 2014, p. 84).

Additional Information
It is your responsibility to complete the readings, quizzes, journal entries, and exams on time.
Late withdrawal forms will not be signed without written verification of extenuating
circumstances.

Academic Dishonesty
Cheating and plagiarism are academic dishonesty. They are not tolerated in this class. It is
offensive to the educational system and it offends me personally. Cheating on any of the exams
or a plagiarized assignment will receive an automatic zero for that assignment, and may
result in a failing grade for the course. If you are unclear what plagiarism is, go to the
following site to learn more: http://www.plagiarism.org/.

UH Policy on e-mail communication
The electronic communications policy adopted in December 2005 establishes the University of
Hawai’i Internet service as an official medium for communication among students, faculty,
and staff. Every member of the system has a hawaii.edu address, and the associated username
and password provide access to essential Web announcements and e-mail. You are hereby
informed of the need to log regularly in to UH e-mail and Web services for announcements and
personal mail. Failing to do so will mean missing critical information from academic and
program advisors, instructors, registration, and business office staff, classmates, student
organizations, and others.

Accommodation
“If you are a student with a documented disability and have not voluntarily disclosed the nature
of your disability so that we may coordinate the accommodations you need, you are invited to
contact the Disability Support Services Office in `Ilima 107, ph.734-9552 , or email
kapdss@hawaii.edu for assistance. For students whose primary disability is Deaf or hard of
hearing, contact the KCC Deaf Center in Manono 102, ph. 734-9210 (V) or 447-1379
(videophone)”

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

138
Course Content and Schedule — Fall 2014

WK T/Th READINGS CLASS ASSIGNMENTS, ACTIVITIES, and KEY DATES
1 08/26

8/28
Introduction

Chapter 1
Introduction and course overview
Study habits and strategies
Read pp. 1-27
8/29: Last day to withdraw from full-semester classes with
100% tuition refund
2 9/2
9/4
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Read pp. 29-65
3 9/9

9/11
Chapter 2

Meet at
Library
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Pick a question for your presentation
Librarians will teach you how to use the library and how to
evaluate the quality of your sources.
Take this opportunity to select your journal article for your
class presentation.
4

9/16

9/18

Chapter 3

Chapter 4
9/15: Last day to withdraw from full-semester classes with
50% tuition refund. Last day to withdraw without a “W”
grade (end of erase period)
Read pp. 67-105
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Read pp. 107-131
Video: Killing Us Softly
5 9/23
9/25
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Read pp. 133-165
6 9/30
10/2
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Read pp. 167-191
7 10/7
10/9
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Read pp. 193-217
8 10/14

10/16
Chapter 7

Chapter 8
Video: Get Smart (WCC-531)
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Read pp. 219-253
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

139
9 10/21
10/23

Chapter 9
MIDTERM EXAM
Read pp. 255-281
10 10/28
10/30
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Read pp. 283-309
Video: Stress: Portrait of a Killer
10/30: Last day to withdraw from full-semester classes.
11 11/4
11/6
Holiday
Chapter 10
General Election Day
Progressive Relaxation Technique and Meditation Exercise
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
12 11/11
11/13
Holiday
Chapter 11
Veterans Day
Read pp. 311-335
Take personality test prior to class
13 11/18

11/20
Chapter 11

Chapter 12
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
11/18 Last day to submit bonus reaction paper
Read pp. 337-369
14 11/25
11/27
Chapter 12
Holiday
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Thanksgiving Day
15 12/2
12/4
Chapter 13
Chapter 13
Read pp. 371-407
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Do extra credit in LaunchPad: Psych Investigator
16 12/9

12/11
Chapter 14

Chapter 14
Read pp. 409-435
Class Activities: Practice empathic listening
Do LearningCurve and Take Online Quiz
Do extra credit in LaunchPad: Psych Investigator
17 12/18 Study Guide FINAL EXAM: December 18 from 12:15pm to 2:15pm

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

140
Online Course Syllabus

COURSE: Psychology 100 Survey of Psychology
CREDITS: 3 credits
TIME: T/R 1:45 – 3:00 pm
Office Hours: Tuesday, 1:00 – 1:30 pm or 4:30 – 5:15pm
Thursday, 4:30 – 5:15 pm
Saturday, 3:00 – 4:00 pm
Email or by appointment
DATES: 08/25/2014 – 12/19/2014

I. Introduction and Prerequisites
This is a distance learning class conducted via the internet using Laulima, University of
Hawai’i’s webbased course management system. LaunchPad, the textbook companion website,
can be accessed from Laulima. A web-based course such as this one requires that you have
computer literacy skills. Please refer to Section VI of this syllabus for information on basic
computer skills required to take this class. Prerequisites: Qualification for ENG 100;
qualification for MATH 24 or higher.

II. Learning Resources and Materials
Required Text: Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2014). Psychology in Everyday Life (3rd
ed.). NY: Worth.
Website: https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal
Library: Consult a librarian when you have questions about how to access research
material. The librarian can introduce you to different methods of finding
information related to your topic. See: http://library.kapiolani.hawaii.edu

III. Catalog Description
PSY 100 focuses on basic concepts and principles of psychology in the areas of individual
differences, motivation, emotion, perception, learning, methodology, tests and measurement,
history, abnormal, physiology, and applied psychology. This course emphasizes lectures,
multimedia presentations, discussions, and experimentation.

IV. Student Learning Outcomes
At the successful completion of this course, the student will be able to:
a) Describe the nature of psychology as a discipline, explaining why psychology is a
science, and listing the primary objectives of psychology: describing, understanding,
predicting, and controlling behavior and mental processes.
b) Identify the concepts, language, and major theories of the discipline to account for
psychological phenomena.
c) Compare and contrast the major perspectives of psychology: behavioral, neuroscience,
cognitive, evolutionary, humanistic, psychodynamic, and socio-cultural.
d) Identify overarching themes and persistent questions in psychology.
e) Describe the basic methodology of the science of psychology, explaining different
research methods used by psychologists.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

141
f) Use critical thinking and reasoning effectively, identifying and evaluating the source,
context, and credibility of information, evaluating popular media reports regarding
psychological research.
g) State how psychological principles can be used to explain social issues and inform public
policy and recognize that socio-cultural contexts may influence the application of
psychological principles in solving social problems.
h) Apply psychological concepts, theories, and research findings as these relate to everyday
life.
i) Explain the necessity for ethical behavior in all aspects of the science and practice of
psychology.
j) Communicate effectively, by listening accurately, and actively and articulating ideas
thoughtfully and purposefully.
k) Demonstrate the ability to collaborate effectively.

V. Course Tasks and Assessments
How students demonstrate they have met the learning outcomes listed above (and earn points
toward their grade in psychology 100):

Because this course is conducted via the internet, our class communication, assignments, and
testing will all be online. You’ll be using various Laulima tools, including a message board, and
online quizzes and exams. In addition, you will need to complete homework assignments in
LaunchPad. For instructions to register for LaunchPad, see Section VII of this Syllabus.

You are responsible for keeping up in this class: your diligence in logging in regularly to the
class site, and engaging in a timely fashion, is essential to your success. No late work is accepted
in this class without written verification of medical or legal circumstances. Please ask your
instructor and/or your classmates if you are unclear on a particular topic.

Tasks:
2 Exams (MidTerm:150 points; Final:250 points): 400 pts
14 Chapter Quizzes (12 points each): 168 pts
Videos (with quiz) 163 pts
14 Message Board Posts (10 points each): 140 pts
43 Learning Curve Assignments (3 points each): 129 pts
Syllabus Bonus Quiz 10 pts
2 Bonus Lab (5 points each) 10 pts
Total possible points 1,020 pts

Grades:
900-1,020 points = A; 800-899 points = B; 700-799 points = C; 600-699 points = D; < 600 = F.

Exams:
The midterm (worth 150 points) and final exam (worth 250 points) consist of answering two sets
of questions in depth. The first set of questions will have to be answered from several of the
following perspectives: behavioral, neuroscience, cognitive, evolutionary, humanistic,
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

142
psychodynamic, and sociocultural. The second set of questions will be about some key concepts
in psychology. A study guide will be provided to help you prepare for the essay questions.

The final exam will also include multiple-choice questions (100 points) covering the material
you’ve learned throughout the entire semester. The exams are meant to show you have met
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J.

The two exams must be taken at a Testing Center (e.g., KapCC testing center:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kcctest/).

Quizzes:
All quizzes are multiple-choice. Quizzes are open book and must be completed online in the
given time period. You can retake each quiz as many times as you wish. Your highest quiz score
will be recorded into the grade book. Please see below or consult the Laulima Calendar for due
dates. If you are having problems with the quizzes, please contact the instructor as soon as
possible!

Videos:
There are several short videos assigned for each chapter. Please watch them and then take the
quiz at the end of each video.

Message Boards:
You will be required to post messages to the Laulima online message board. Each week, there
will be a new topic on which you need to comment and/or reflect. Your posts should be well
thought out, and you must explain your point of view. Simply saying, “I agree with the previous
post” will not be sufficient.

There will not be any right or wrong answers, and therefore it is your effort and ability to follow
directions and the depth of your contribution that is being graded. Posts must be written using
standard English grammar and punctuation. In addition, if you wish to quote your textbook, you
must use quotation marks and cite your source. For more information, please consult the Course
Information in the Discussion and Message Board section of Laulima.

LearningCurve:
You will be required to test your knowledge using LearningCurve. There is a total of 43
LearningCurve exercises. LearningCurve combines adaptive question selection, personalized
study plans, immediate feedback, and question analysis reports. LearningCurve is meant to keep
you engaged while helping you learn and remember key concepts.

IMPORTANT NOTE: No late work is accepted in this class without written verification of
medical or legal circumstances. Do not wait until the last day to do your work because all kinds
of problems can happen. This is online course reality. If you experience problems at the last
minute and miss course work, your grade will be recorded as a zero. No exceptions.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

143

Due Dates Assignments Due Date Assignments
Friday, August 29th by
11:55 PM
Extra Credit Quiz on
Syllabus
Thursday, October 23rd
by 5:00 PM
MB 8
Sunday, August 31st by
11:55 PM
Chapter 1 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, October 23rd
by11:55 PM
Chapter 8 Quiz
Thursday, September 4th
by 5:00 PM
Message Board (MB) 1 Sunday, October 26th by
11:55 PM
Chapter 9 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, September 4th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 1 Quiz Thursday, October 30th
by 5:00 PM
MB 9
Sunday, September 7th by
11:55 PM
Chapter 2 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, October 30th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 9 Quiz
Thursday, September 11th
by 5:00 PM
MB 2 Sunday, November 2nd
by11:55 PM
Chapter 10 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, September 11th
by 11:55 PM
Chapter 2 Quiz Thursday, November 6th
by 5:00 PM
MB 10
Sunday, September 14th
by 11:55 PM
Chapter 3 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, November 6th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 10 Quiz
Thursday, September 18th
by 5:00 PM
MB 3 Sunday, November 9th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 11 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, September 18th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 3 Quiz Thursday, November 13th
by 5:00 PM
MB 11
Sunday, September 21st
by11:55 PM
Chapter 4 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, November 13th
by 11:55 PM
Chapter 11 Quiz
Thursday, September 25th
by 5:00 PM
MB 4 Sunday, November 16th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 12 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, September 25th
by 11:55 PM
Chapter 4 Quiz Thursday, November 20th
by 5:00 PM
MB 12
Sunday, September 28th
by 11:55 PM
Chapter 5 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, November 20th
by 11:55 PM
Chapter 12 Quiz
Thursday, October 2nd by
5:00 PM
MB 5 Sunday, November 23rd
by 11:55 PM
None
Thursday, October 2
nd
by
11:55 PM
Chapter 5 Quiz Thursday, November 27
th

y 5:00 pm
None
Sunday, October 5th by
11:55 PM
Chapter 6 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, November 27th
by11:55 PM
None
Thursday, October 9th by
5:00 PM
MB 6 Sunday, November 30th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 13 Videos and
Learning Curve + Psych
Investigator Bonus
Thursday, October 9th by
11:55 PM
Chapter 6 Quiz Thursday, December 4th
by 5:00 PM
MB 13
Sunday, October 12th by
11:55 PM
Chapter 7 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, December 4th
by 11:55 PM
Chapter 13 Quiz
Thursday, October 16th
by 5:00 PM
MB 7 Sunday, December 7th by
11:55 PM
Chapter 14 Videos and
Learning Curve + Psych
Investigator Bonus
Thursday, October 16th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 7 Quiz Thursday, December 11th
by 5:00 PM
MB 14
Sunday, October 19th by
11:55 PM
Chapter 8 Videos and
Learning Curve
Thursday, December 11th
by11:55 PM
Chapter 14 Quiz
Tuesday, October 21st MidTerm Exam (Chapters
1-7)
Tuesday, December 16th Final Exam

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

144
VI. Computer/Laulima Expectations
Reliable, high-speed broadband internet access is required.
All of your work will be submitted online. Your grade is based entirely on your online
performance, so besides reliable internet access, you will need the basic computer skills listed
below. If you are not ready for an online course environment, please consider switching to a
face-to-face class.

Computer Skills: Computer literacy is required. You should be able to do the following on a
computer:
• Type assignments
• Use email
• Navigate a website
• Post to a message board

Laulima Tools
You are required to use selected Laulima tools for this class. If you need help, go to Laulima
Help (in the toolbar at left) for tutorials and instructions.

VII. Registering for Launchpad
If you purchased the access code with the textbook from the bookstore:
1. Log into Laulima (https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal)
2. Find our PSY-100 [KAP PSY-100 Group] tab. If it is not located as one of the tabs at the
top of the page, click on the My Active Sites tab and look for our course.
3. Once you login, click the Launchpad link from the Main Menu on the left side of the
screen. For more information about the details of our course, please consult Course
Information in the Discussions and Message Boards section of our Laulima course.

VIII. Course Tasks and Assessments
It is your responsibility to complete the readings, videos, quizzes, message board posts, and
LaunchPad assignments on time.
Late withdrawal forms will not be signed without written verification of extenuating
circumstances.

Academic Dishonesty
Cheating and plagiarism are academic dishonesty. They are not tolerated in this class. It is
offensive to the educational system and it offends me personally. Cheating on any of the exams
or a plagiarized assignment will receive an automatic zero for that assignment, and may result in
a failing grade for the course. If you are unclear what plagiarism is, go to the following site to
learn more: http://www.plagiarism.org/.

UH Policy on e-mail communication
The electronic communications policy adopted in December 2005 establishes the University of
Hawai’i Internet service as an official medium for communication among students, faculty, and
staff. Every member of the system has a hawaii.edu address, and the associated username and
password provide access to essential Web announcements and e-mail. You are hereby informed
of the need to log regularly in to UH e-mail and Web services for announcements and personal
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

145
mail. Failing to do so will mean missing critical information from academic and program
advisors, instructors, registration, and business office staff, classmates, student organizations,
and others.

Accommodation
If you are a student with a documented disability and have not voluntarily disclosed the nature of
your disability so that we may coordinate the accommodations you need, you are invited to
contact the Disability Support Services Office in ‘Ilima 107, ph.734-9552, or email
kapdss@hawaii.edu for assistance.

For students whose primary disability is Deaf or hard of hearing, contact the KCC Deaf Center in
Manono 102, ph. 734-9210 (V) or 447-1379 (videophone).

Student Conduct Code
Conduct expected of students at Kapi’olani Community College is defined in the University of
Hawai’i Board of Regents’ Statement on Rights and Responsibilities of the University of
Hawai’i Student Conduct Code. Kapi’olani Community College has a Student Conduct Code
that defines expected conduct for students and specifies those acts subject to University
sanctions. The student conduct code may be accessed at http://kcc.hawaii.edu/page/policies.
Copies of the Student Conduct Code are also available at the Office of the Vice Chancellor of
Student Affairs, ‘Ilima 205.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

146
Flipped Course Syllabus

COURSE: Psychology 100 Survey of Psychology
CREDITS: 3 credits
TIME: Saturdays, 12:00 – 2:45 pm
Office Hours: Tuesday, 1:00 – 1:30 pm or 4:30 – 5:15pm
Thursday, 4:30 – 5:15 pm
Saturday, 3:00 – 4:00 pm
Email or by appointment
DATES: 08/25/2014 – 10/25/2014

This is an accelerated 9-week section that allows you to complete this course in half the time of
a traditional class. This PSY 100 class section (CRN 34895) is conducted on the internet and at
the Kapi’olani Community College campus on Saturday. This is a hybrid course that flipped the
conventional classroom, utilizing lectures and video on the internet and face-to-face time for
engaging mini-lectures and hands-on activities. Students should have regular and reliable access
to the internet and email, and also be able to attend the scheduled class meeting time.

CATALOG DESCRIPTION
PSY 100 focuses on basic concepts and principles of psychology in the areas of individual
differences, motivation, emotion, perception, learning, methodology, tests and measurement,
history, abnormal, physiology, and applied psychology. This course emphasizes lectures,
multimedia presentations, discussions, and experimentation.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the successful completion of this course, the student will be able to:
a) Describe the nature of psychology as a discipline, explaining why psychology is a
science, and listing the primary objectives of psychology: describing, understanding,
predicting, and controlling behavior and mental processes.
b) Identify the concepts, language, and major theories of the discipline to account for
psychological phenomena.
c) Compare and contrast the major perspectives of psychology: behavioral, neuroscience,
cognitive, evolutionary, humanistic, psychodynamic, and socio-cultural.
d) Identify overarching themes and persistent questions in psychology.
e) Describe the basic methodology of the science of psychology, explaining different
research methods used by psychologists.
f) Use critical thinking and reasoning effectively, identifying and evaluating the source,
context, and credibility of information, evaluating popular media reports regarding
psychological research.
g) State how psychological principles can be used to explain social issues and inform public
policy and recognize that socio-cultural contexts may influence the application of
psychological principles in solving social problems.
h) Apply psychological concepts, theories, and research findings as these relate to everyday
life.
i) Explain the necessity for ethical behavior in all aspects of the science and practice of
psychology.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

147
j) Communicate effectively, by listening accurately, and actively and articulating ideas
thoughtfully and purposefully.
k) Demonstrate the ability to collaborate effectively.

COURSE TASKS AND ASSESSMENT
How students demonstrate they have met the learning outcomes listed above (and earn points
toward their grade in Psychology 100):

140 points Online Quizzes After each chapter, you will take a short quiz. Quizzes are open
book and must be completed online in the given time period. You can retake each
quiz as many times as you wish. Your highest quiz score will be recorded into the
grade book. Please consult the LaunchPad Calendar for due dates. If you are
having problems with the quizzes, please contact the instructor as soon as
possible!

292 points LearningCurve and Short Video. Complete the Learning Curves and Short
Videos assignment for each Chapter by the due date (See LaunchPad
Calendar). LearningCurve is a learning application that will provide you with
valuable feedback on what you have learned from reading the textbook. Based on
prior studies, using LearningCurve should also help you perform better on the
quizzes. Assignments are selected to demonstrate you have met Student Learning
Outcomes (SLO) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 11.

200 points Final Exam The final exam consists of multiple-choice questions and two sets of
essay questions. The first set of questions will have to be answered from several
of the following perspectives: behavioral, neuroscience, cognitive, evolutionary,
humanistic, psychodynamic, and socio-cultural. The second set of questions will
be about some of the key issues in psychology, such as nature versus nurture,
conscious versus unconscious, observable versus internal, free will versus
determinism, or individual differences versus universal principles. The exams are
meant to show you have met Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) B, C, D, E, F, G,
H, and J.

368 points In-Class Activities: There will be eight face-to-face class meetings in which you
will reflect on the readings and assignments, demonstrate your understanding of
the weekly concepts, and practice specific psychological skills. Specific class
activities include writing a paragraph on the muddiest point in the readings or the
videos, debating issues, interviewing students and summarizing data.
Additionally, you will be working on your personal psychology research question
project (see below for more details).

In-Class projects:
Research paper (100 pts): On the second day of class, you will pick one question to explore in-
depth and answer it from at least four different perspectives. This will include library research
with librarian (30 pts).
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

148
Structured feedback: You will provide feedback on the in-class projects of two other students.
(30 pts): Identify a concept that is confusing and explain why you find it confusing (for
example, unclear logical development, not enough examples, or the example could be better). If
everything is clear, relate one of the concepts presented to a prior class topic or discussion using
a specific example.

Before the class presentation: Review feedback and improve your paper.

Class Presentation (100 pts): Answer your question to the class in a clear and engaging way,
including its relevance to everyday life. DO NOT READ YOUR NOTES! You will work on
your PowerPoint presentation in class. You should use visuals to enhance the presentation.
Engage your audience with examples, short videos, artwork, questions, controversial ideas or
issues, etc., that can generate further discussion. Keep in mind that your presentation is to benefit
your audience. (Group presentation should be between 7 to 10 minutes long depending on the
number of students presenting) (SLOs: 6, 8, 10, 11).

10 points Bonus Lab. There are two short lab exercises in LaunchPad to further explore
different psychological perspectives related to diagnosis and therapy (5 pts each).

GRADES
900-1000 points =A; 800-899 points=B; 700-799 points=C; 600-699 points=D; <600=F
Keep track of your points and approximate your grade average as you fulfill the course tasks.
Use the point criteria as a checklist before you turn in an assignment!

Tentative Weekly Schedule
The following is a tentative schedule of topics and readings. The readings MUST be completed
BEFORE the class session. A final schedule will be provided on the first day of instruction.

Class activities for January 30 (12 points)
Introduction to Psychology
• Personal introduction based on various psychological perspectives and with an emphasis
on interests in psychology
• Take survey
• Survey of the main psychological perspectives and the BIG questions
• Mini lecture on the scientific method
• Measuring the speed of thought experiment
• In-class exercises on methods

Class activities for September 6 (Total: 40 points)
• Chapter 2: The Biology of Mind and Consciousness
• Chapter 3: Developing Through the Life Span
• Focusing/Reflection activities
• Meditation practice
• Personal Psychological Question (PPQ) Project: Identify a personally meaningful
question, which can be answered using examples from at least four different perspectives
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

149
(e.g., psychodynamic, behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, neurosciences, socio-cultural,
and/or evolutionary).
• Library Research (30 points)
• Debate whether development is continuous or discontinuous (use evidence)
• Debate the relative contribution of genes and learning

Class activities for September 13 (15 points)
• Chapter 4: Gender and Sexuality
• Chapter 5: Sensation and Perception
• Reflection on readings and videos
• Mini-lecture on Psychology of Seeing
• Personal Psychology Research Question (PPRQ) Project: Work on answering your
question using examples from at least four different perspectives (e.g., psychodynamic,
behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, neurosciences, socio-cultural, and/or evolutionary).
Two of the examples should come from the psychological literature and should include
APA references. Two example can be from your textbook or from your creative mind.

Class activities for September 20 (40 points)
• Chapter 6: Learning
• Chapter 7: Memory
• Reflection on readings and videos
• Demonstration of shaping
• Debate on the effectiveness of punishment
• In-class demonstration on the reliability of memory
• Personal Psychological Question Project: Evaluate the examples of another student’s
PPRQ project in terms of accuracy and appropriateness and suggest at least two new
examples, which you think would make a stronger case to illustrate a particular
perspective or improve on the existing examples (30 points)

Class activities for September 27 (16 points)
• Chapter 8: Thinking, Language, and Intelligence
• Chapter 9: Motivation and Emotion
• Reflection on readings and videos
• Exercises on decision-making (e.g., heuristics)
• Mini-lecture on Maslow followed by self-actualization survey

Class activities for October 4 (15 points)
• Chapter 10: Stress, Health, and Human Flourishing
• Presentations of PPRQ to the class (7-10 min per students)
• Progressive relaxation technique exercise/Visualization

Class activities for October 11 (15 points)
• Chapter 11: Personality
• Chapter 12: Social Psychology
• Reflection on readings and videos
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

150
• Presentation of PPRQ to the class (7-10 min per students)
• Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
• Debate free will based on the findings from social psychology (e.g., Asch, Milgram,
Zimbardo, etc.)

Class activities for October 18 (15 points)
• Chapter 13: Psychological Disorders
• Chapter 14: Therapy
• Reflection on readings and videos
• Presentation of PPRQ to the class (7-10 min per students)
• Debate on the most effective way to treat depression (be prepared to argue from any
perspectives—you will be randomly assigned to one perspective that you’ll need to
defend)
• Empathic listening exercise—Carl Rogers and the humanistic perspective.

Final Exam: October 25

Learning Resources and Materials

Required Text and LaunchPad
The required text is Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N., Psychology in Everyday Life (3
rd
. Ed.)
(2014). NY: Worth Publishers. You must purchase the textbook with the LaunchPad Access
code card from the KCC Bookstore. The ISBN for this combination is 9781464194450 and the
cost is $68.45. This should be purchased ASAP to do your first week assignments.

LaunchPad is a product of MacMillan Education that uses a streamlined interface that helps
students focus on what’s due next, social commenting tools let them engage, make connections,
and learn from each other. Follow the steps below to get registered after you have purchased the
text/access code from the KCC Bookstore.
1. Go to http://www.macmillanhighered.com/launchpad/pel3e/671985
2. Bookmark the page to make it easy to return to.
3. If you have an access code, click the button “Enter Your Student Access Code” in the
upper right corner and follow the instructions.
4. If you don’t have an access code, either click the “Purchase Access” or “Temporary
Access” button.
5. If you have any problems registering, purchasing, or logging in, please contact Technical
Support. You can reach a representative 24 hours a day, 7 days a week through our online
form, by chat, or from 9 a.m. to 3 a.m. EST, 7 days a week by phone at (800) 936-6899.

Websites
• MacMillan Education’s LaunchPad for Myers & DeWall, Psychology in Everyday Life.
See instructions above for purchase/registration information
• Laulima, the University of Hawaii Learning & Collaboration Server (Class website)

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

151
Free Online Tutoring
Brainfuse is an online tutoring service provided free of charge to University of Hawai’i
Community College students. With Brainfuse you can:
1. Receive instant tutoring and interact with a live tutor.
2. Submit your writing for any class to the Online Writing Lab.
3. Submit a question and receive a reply from a tutor.
4. And much more!
5. Click here for the more information and login directions.

Library
The library offers a range of services including assistance with research and computers. Consult
a librarian when you have questions about how to access research material. The librarian can
introduce you to different methods of finding information related to your topic. The KCC library
website is http://library.kapiolani.hawaii.edu/

Acrobat Reader
Some course material will be in portable document format, better known as pdf. Go to the
Acrobat Reader website at http://get.adobe.com/reader/ and download then install the latest
version of this free program.

Internet Requirements
1. A reliable, high speed broadband Internet connection is required for this class, e.g., DSL
or cable. Wireless mobile Internet service providers, e.g., ClearWire, AT&T Wireless, or
Verizon Wireless, are NOT recommended for this course due to known connectivity
problems with Laulima. If you choose to use a wireless mobile provider when taking this
course, you may jeopardize your chances of completing online assignments and
activities. Accommodations will NOT be made if you experience technical difficulties
due to use of a wireless Internet service provider.
2. The Firefox web browser is recommended by UH for Laulima, our primary course web
site. If you choose to use another browser, you may experience problems with viewing
course content and posting material to the class. When updating or first using a web
browser, we recommend clearing the web browser cache first.
3. The latest version of Java is required. If you haven’t updated your computer’s version of
Java lately, click here to ensure that you have the recommended version.

Student Contributions
This syllabus provides information about the structure, content, organization, and requirements
of this course. Read it carefully and ask questions if anything is unclear.
1. You are required to read the assigned chapters in the textbook prior to coming to class,
i.e., come to class prepared.
2. You are required to complete all assigned exercises on LaunchPad and Laulima by the
DUE DATE.
3. When preparing for your Class Project, use the instructions provided.
4. Study for tests by reading the chapters, coming to every class, and logging into the
websites to take practice tests or access other information. Each test will have 15
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

152
multiple-choice items, each worth 2 points. Tests cover each chapter and are not
cumulative.
5. Avoid coming late to class. Have your cell phone turned off. Ignoring these rules will
affect your participation points.
6. In the event of an absence it is your responsibility to learn the information covered in
class that day and fulfill all assignments.
7. Plagiarism or any other forms of cheating are unacceptable. If confirmed, you will
receive an F for this course. Make sure any sentence copied from ANY source is properly
referenced. For example: “Cultural values vary from place to place and, even in the same
place, from one time to another.” (Myers & DeWall, 2014, p. 84).

Additional Information
It is your responsibility to complete the readings, quizzes, posts, and LaunchPad assignments on
time.

Late withdrawal forms will not be signed without written verification of extenuating
circumstances.

Academic Dishonesty
Cheating and plagiarism are academic dishonesty. They are not tolerated in this class. It is
offensive to the educational system and it offends me personally. Cheating on any of the exams
or a plagiarized assignment will receive an automatic zero for that assignment, and may
result in a failing grade for the course. If you are unclear what plagiarism is, go to the
following site to learn more: http://www.plagiarism.org/.

UH Policy on e-mail Communication
The electronic communications policy adopted in December 2005 establishes the University of
Hawai’i Internet service as an official medium for communication among students, faculty,
and staff. Every member of the system has a hawaii.edu address, and the associated username
and password provide access to essential Web announcements and e-mail. You are hereby
informed of the need to log regularly in to UH e-mail and Web services for announcements and
personal mail. Failing to do so will mean missing critical information from academic and
program advisors, instructors, registration, and business office staff, classmates, student
organizations, and others.

Accommodation
If you are a student with a documented disability and have not voluntarily disclosed the nature of
your disability so that we may coordinate the accommodations you need, you are invited to
contact the Disability Support Services Office in ‘Ilima 107, ph.734-9552, or email
kapdss@hawaii.edu for assistance. For students whose primary disability is Deaf or hard of
hearing, contact the KCC Deaf Center in Manono 102, ph. 734-9210 (V) or 447-1379
(videophone).

Student Conduct Code
Conduct expected of students at Kapi’olani Community College is defined in the University of
Hawai’i Board of Regents’ Statement on Rights and Responsibilities of the University of
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

153
Hawai’i Student Conduct Code. Kapi’olani Community College has a Student Conduct Code
that defines expected conduct for students and specifies those acts subject to University
sanctions. The student conduct code may be accessed at http://kcc.hawaii.edu/page/policies.
Copies of the Student Conduct Code are also available at the Office of the Vice Chancellor of
Student Affairs, ‘Ilima 205.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

154
APPENDIX B
INSTRUMENTS
Demographic Survey

1. Why did you choose this specific type of course instruction (i.e. face-to-face, online, or
flipped)?
a) Location
b) Schedule
c) Time Conflicts
d) I learn best in this type of environement
e) Other

2. Why did you choose to enroll in Psychology 100?
a) Personal growth or fun
b) Work related reasons
c) For credit toward a certificate
d) For credit toward an Associate’s
e) For credit toward a Bachelor’s degree
f) Other

3. Have you taken an online or hybrid course prior to taking this course?
a) Yes
b) No

4. What is your academic status?
a) Part-time
b) Full-time

5. How many credits have you earned at this institution?
a) 0
b) 1 to 15
c) 16 to 30
d) 31 to 45
e) 46 or more

6. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
a) High school
b) Some college no degree
c) Associate degree
d) Bachelor degree
e) Graduate degree
f) Professional degree
g) Doctorate degree
h) Prefer not to say
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

155
7. What is your employment status?
a) Part-time
b) Full-time
c) Not employed

8. What is your age?
a) 18 to 24
b) 25 to 34
c) 35 to 39
d) 40 to 44
e) 45 - 49
f) 50-54
g) 55-64
h) 65-69
i) 70 or older
j) prefer not to say

9. What is your race or ethnicity?
a) Hispanic/Latino
b) White
c) American Indian or Alaska Native
d) Black or African American
e) Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian
f) Pacific Islander
g) Asian
h) South Asian and Asian Indian
i) Prefer not to say.
j) Mixed (two or more)

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

156
Pre-test (answers are bolded)

1. A psychodynamic approach to therapy is most likely to involve
a) training patients in progressive relaxation.
b) suggesting interpretive insights regarding patients difficulties
c) recommending the use of antipsychotic drugs during the process of psychotherapy.
d) encouraging depressed patients to take more responsibility of their failures.

2. Abraham Maslow referred to the need to live up to one’s fullest and unique potential as the:
a) needs hierarchy
b) need to belong
c) need for self-esteem
d) need for self-actualization

3. According to Freud, understanding how the id, ego, and superego interact is essential to
grasping the nature of:
a) unconditional positive regard
b) reciprocal determinism
c) mental conflict
d) an inferiority complex

4. After she suffered a stroke, Mrs. Jones had so much difficulty speaking that she had to
communicate by writing. This suggests that her brain damage occurred in:
a) the occipital lobe
b) Broca’s area
c) the temporal lobe
d) Wernickes area

5. As college students approach final exams they are especially likely to experience a rise in
a) serotonin
b) oxytocin
c) lymphocytes
d) blood pressure

6. Biological psychology is best described as the study of links between
a) biology and behavior
b) genes and neurotransmitters
c) sensory and motor neurons
d) the CNS an the PNS

7. Certain psychological disorders occur only in particular cultures. This provides evidence for
the value of
a) the psychoanalytical perspective
b) the medical model
c) a biopsychosocial approach
d) the DSM-5
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

157
8. Children can learn to fear the persons or places associated with their punsishment. the best
illustrates
a) intrinsic motivation
b) the law of effect
c) latent learning
d) classical conditioning

9. Children ten to classify toys and songs as either masculine or feminine. This is most likely to
encourage
a) menarche
b) androgyny
c) gender typing
d) exhibitionism

10. Feeling responsible for behavior in a way that violates our conscience is most likely to
contribute to the
a) the bystander effect
b) cognitive dissonance
c) the fundamental attribution error
d) group polarization

11. Fran refuses to believe that he addicted to drugs despite the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. He is most clearly demonstrating the defense mechanism of
a) displacement
b) regression
c) projection
d) denial

12. Human personality shows the greatest stability during
a) preschool years
b) late childhood
c) teenage years
d) adulthood

13. In a group discussion, women are ______ likely than men to express support for others’
opinions. As group leaders, women are ______ likely than men to promote a democratic
leadership style.
a) less; more
b) more; more
c) less; less
d) more; less

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

158
14. Jeremy consistently attributes his poor performance to his own incompetence. This most
clearly indicates that he experiences a low level of
a) agreeableness
b) projection
c) neuroticism
d) self-efficacy

15. Learned helplessness is most closely associated with
a) depression
b) schizophrenia
c) compulsions
d) antisocial personality disorder

16. Learning that certain events occur together is called
a) shaping
b) latent learning
c) observational learning
d) associative learning

17. Memory is best defined as
a) the conscious encoding of information
b) stored knowledge that has been semantically encoded
c) the persistence of learning through the encoding, storage, and retrieval of
information
d) the retrieval of stored information in precisely the same form in which it was encoded

18. Paula expects that studying hard will enable her to earn good grades on her tests. Paula’s
belief best illustrates
a) emotion focused coping
b) the then-and-befriend response
c) the adaptation level phenomena
d) an internal locus of control

19. People can simultaneously process many aspects of sensory information such as color, depth,
movement, and form. This best illustrates the function of many
a) algorithms
b) neural networks
c) critical periods
d) fixations

20. Rephrasing text material in your own words is an effective way of facilitating
a) implicit memory
b) proactive interference
c) mood-congruent memory
d) meaning encoding

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

159
21. Sensory neurons transmit signals to
a) glands
b) free radicals
c) motor neurons
d) interneurons

22. Some drugs used to treat depression increases the level of neurotransmitter
a) GABA
b) Ach
c) serotonin
d) dopamine

23. The ability of preschool children to empathize with classmates who are feeling sad, illustrates
that preoperational children have developed
a) a sense of integrity
b) conventional morality
c) a theory of mind
d) a concept of conservation

24. The arousal theory of motivation would be most helpful for explaining
a) recreational skydivers jump out of airplanes
b) hungry fishermen venture across dangerous ocean waters
c) starving prisoners are preoccupied with thoughts of food
d) sexually active teens learn to practice effective birth control

25. The concept that psychological disorders are biologically based sicknesses is known as the
a) psychoanalytical theory
b) social-cognitive perspective
c) medical model
d) biopsychosocial approach

26. The effect of prior experience and current expectations on perception best illustrates the
importance of
a) dissociation
b) transduction
c) sensory thresholds
d) top-down processing

27. The loss of parental attention and care experienced by many young children is likely to put
them at increased risk for
a) infantile amnesia
b) egocentrism
c) post-conventional morality
d) insecure attachment

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

160
28. The personal values of psychologist are likely to influence their choice of
a) topics of investigation
b) research methods
c) explanatory theories
d) topic, method, and theory

29. This morning, Sabrina read her horoscope in the local newspaper. She interprets many
events of the day as clear proof of the horoscopes accuracy. This best illustrates the dangers of
a) perceptual set
b) sensory adaptation
c) the McGurk effect
d) clairvoyance

30. To describe the behavior of animals in their native habitats, researchers are most likely to
make use of
a) survey research
b) random assignment
c) experimental methods
d) naturalistic observation

31. Twin and adoption studies are helpful for assessing the ______ of intelligence.
a) validity
b) reliability
c) heritability
d) standardization

32. Walking home from work late one night, Sheila suddenly hears footsteps behind her. Her
heart pounds, her muscles tense, and her mouth goes dry. These bodily responses are activated
by her ______ nervous system.
a) central
b) sympathetic
c) parasympathetic
d) somatic

33. When children misbehave, some parents use a time-out, removing the children from their
desired surroundings. This practice best illustrates
a) negative reinforcement
b) latent learning
c) negative punishment
d) extinction

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

161
34. Which approach emphasizes the importance of providing patients with feelings of
unconditional positive regard?
a) cognitive therapy
b) psychoanalysis
c) client-centered therapy
d) systematic desensitization

35. Which of the following theories has been criticized for overestimating the impact of genes on
gender difference in mating preferences?
a) behaviorism
b) social learning theory
c) evolutional theory
d) all of these theories have bee criticized for this reason

36. Which procedure helps to ensure that the participants in a survey are representative of a
larger population?
a) random assignment
b) replication
c) naturalistic observation
d) random sampling

37. In studying the development of relationships, Dr. Rajiv carefully observed and recorded the
behavior of men and women in singles bars. Which research method did Dr. Rajiv use?
a) naturalistic observation
b) the survey
c) the case study
d) experimentation

38. Plasticity refers to the brain’s capacity to
a) automatically regulate heartbeat and breathing.
b) generate a sense of conscious awareness
c) build new neural pathways
d) transmit information between the two cerebral hemispheres

39. Projection refers to the process by which people
a) consciously express feelings that are the opposite of underlying unconscious impulses
b) disguise unacceptable, unconscious impulses by attributing them to others
c) retreat to behavior patterns characteristic of a more infantile stage development
d) offer self-justifying explanations in place of real, but unacceptable, unconscious reasons
for action.

40. Short term memory capacity can be increased through
1. hypnosis
2. chunking
3. the serial position effect
4. proactive interference
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

162
Post-test/Final Exam (includes the 40 multiple choice questions in the
pre-test as well as the following short answer questions)

41. What are the two basic ways that people cope with stress? Provide one example for each.

42. How do the (a) psychodynamic, (b) humanistic, and (c) social-cognitive theories explain
personality?

43. Explain what Carl Rogers meant by “active listening”. Provide three examples of active
listening.

44. Explain how to treat depression from the following four approaches: (a) psychodynamic, (b)
behavioral, (c) humanistic, and (d) cognitive. Give a specific example for each approach.

45. Explain availability heuristic. Discuss the pros and cons of this heuristic by using two
examples.

46. Describe how we learn from the behavioral perspective and from the cognitive perspective.
Give an example for each.

End of Course Survey

Likert Scale Questions
(Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree)
a) The course objectives and procedures were clear.
b) The instructor was accessible to students outside of class.
c) The course was well organized.
d) The instructor knew the subject area.
e) The instructor encouraged students’ participation.
f) The course material was presented in a clear and effective way.
g) The instructor provided a good atmosphere for learning.
h) The instructor encouraged me to think for myself.
i) The instructor graded tests and assignments fairly.
j) The instructor informed students of their grades on exams and assignments promptly.
k) The instructor demonstrated concern for students.
l) The instructor treated students fairly.

Short answer Questions
m) What are the instructor’s major strengths as a teacher?
n) What changes, if any, do you suggest to the instructor?
o) How did the instructor show concern for students?
p) Would you recommend this instructor to students? Why or why not?
q) What else would you like to say about this instructor?
r) Other comments:

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

163
APPENDIX C
DATA
C.1 Demographic Data

Demographic Data — Traditional Participants (N = 27)

1. Why did you choose this specific type of course instruction
(i.e. face-to-face, online, or flipped)?
No. of
Responses
% of
Responses
Location 2 7%
Schedule 9 33%
Time Conflicts 1 4%
I learn best in this type of environment 14 52%
Other 1 4%
2. Why did you choose to enroll in Psychology 100?
Personal growth or fun 7 26%
Work related reasons 1 4%
For credit toward a certificate 1 4%
For credit toward an Associate’s 15 56%
For credit toward a Bachelor’s degree 2 7%
Other 1 4%
3. Have you taken an online/hybrid course prior to taking this
course?
Yes 10 37%
No 17 63%
4. What is your academic status?
Part-time 4 15%
Full-time 23 85%
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

164
5. How many credits have your earned at this institution?
0 5 19%
1 to 15 7 26%
16 to 30 9 33%
31 to 45 3 11%
46 or more 3 11%
6. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
High school 16 59%
Some college no degree 10 37%
Associate degree 1 4%
Bachelor degree 0 0%
Graduate degree 0 0%
Professional degree 0 0%
Doctorate degree 0 0%
Prefer not to say 0 0%
7. What is your employment status?
Part-time 10 37%
Full-time 4 15%
Not employed 13 48%
8. What is your age?
18 to 24 22 81%
25 to 34 4 15%
35 to 39 0 0%
40 to 44 0 0%
45 - 49 0 0%
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

165
50-54 0 0%
55-64 0 0%
65-69 0 0%
70 or older 0 0%
prefer not to say 1 4%
9. What is your race/ethnicity?
a. Hispanic/Latino 0 0%
b. White 2 7%
c. American Indian or Alaska Native 1 4%
d. Black or African American 0 0%
e. Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian 1 4%
f. Pacific Islander 1 4%
g. Asian 14 52%
h. South Asian and Asian Indian 1 4%
i. Prefer not to say 1 4%
j. Mixed (two or more) 6 22%

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

166
Demographic Data — Online Participants (N = 58)

1. Why did you choose this specific type of course instruction
(i.e. face-to-face, online, or flipped)?
No. of
Responses
% of
Responses
Location 4 7%
Schedule 34 59%
Time Conflicts 10 17%
I learn best in this type of environment 2 3%
Other 8 14%
2. Why did you choose to enroll in Psychology 100?
Personal growth or fun 4 7%
Work related reasons 2 3%
For credit toward a certificate 2 3%
For credit toward an Associate’s 26 45%
For credit toward a Bachelor’s degree 19 33%
Other 5 9%
3. Have you taken an online/hybrid class prior to taking this
class?
Yes 45 78%
No 13 22%
4. What is your academic status?
Part-time 40 69%
Full-time 18 31%
5. How many credits have you earned at this institution?
0 8 14%
1 to 15 15 26%
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

167
16 to 30 15 26%
31 to 45 11 19%
46 or more 9 16%
6. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
High school 21 36%
Some college no degree 28 48%
Associate degree 6 10%
Bachelor degree 3 5%
Graduate degree 0 0%
Professional degree 0 0%
Doctorate degree 0 0%
Prefer not to say 0 0%
7. What is your employment status?
Part-time 12 21%
Full-time 29 50%
Not employed 17 29%
8. What is your age?
18 to 24 40 69%
25 to 34 13 22%
35 to 39 5 9%
40 to 44 0 0%
45 - 49 0 0%
50-54 0 0%
55-64 0 0%
65-69 0 0%
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

168
70 or older 0 0%
prefer not to say 0 0%
9. What is your race/ethnicity?
a. Hispanic/Latino 4 7%
b. White 13 22%
c. American Indian or Alaska Native 2 3%
d. Black or African American 0 0%
e. Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian 4 7%
f. Pacific Islander 3 5%
g. Asian 20 34%
h. South Asian and Asian Indian 1 2%
i. Prefer not to say 1 2%
j. Mixed (two or more) 10 17%

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

169
Demographic Data — Flipped Participants (N = 13)

1. Why did you choose this specific type of course instruction
(i.e. face-to-face, online, or flipped)?
No. of
Responses
% of
Responses
Location 1 8%
Schedule 12 92%
Time Conflicts 0 0%
I learn best in this type of environment 0 0%
Other 0 0%
2. Why did you choose to enroll in Psychology 100?
Personal growth or fun 0 0%
Work related reasons 1 8%
For credit toward a certificate 0 0%
For credit toward an Associate’s 7 54%
For credit toward a Bachelor’s degree 4 31%
Other 1 8%
3. Have you taken an online/hybrid course prior to taking this
course?
Yes 7 54%
No 6 46%
4. What is your academic status?
Part-time 2 15%
Full-time 11 85%
5. How many credits have you earned at this institution?
0 3 23%
1 to 15 3 23%
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

170
16 to 30 5 38%
31 to 45 0 0%
46 or more 2 15%
6. What is the highest level of education that you have
attained?
High school 8 62%
Some college no degree 4 31%
Associate degree 0 0%
Bachelor degree 1 8%
Graduate degree 0 0%
Professional degree 0 0%
Doctorate degree 0 0%
Prefer not to say 0 0%
7. What is your employment status?
Part-time 6 46%
Full-time 5 38%
Not employed 2 15%
8. What is your age?
18 to 24 11 85%
25 to 34 2 15%
35 to 39 0 0%
40 to 44 0 0%
45 - 49 0 0%
50-54 0 0%
55-64 0 0%
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

171
65-69 0 0%
70 or older 0 0%
prefer not to say 0 0%
9. What is your race/ethnicity?
a. Hispanic/Latino 1 8%
b. White 0 0%
c. American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0%
d. Black or African American 0 0%
e. Native Hawaiian or Part Hawaiian 0 0%
f. Pacific Islander 1 8%
g. Asian 6 46%
h. South Asian and Asian Indian 0 0%
i. Prefer not to say 0 0%
j. Mixed (two or more) 5 38%

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

172
C.2 Pre- and Post-Test Data
Traditional
(N=21) Pre Post
Online
(N=42) Pre Post
Flipped
(N=10) Pre Post
T1 20 35 O2 23 20 F1 25 24
T3 15 20 O4 11 15 F2 29 38
T4 31 37 O5 19 26 F4 15 21
T5 18 19 O6 15 14 F5 18 27
T6 19 24 O7 17 18 F6 23 29
T7 18 28 O9 27 21 F7 23 24
T8 20 23 O10 23 31 F8 27 38
T9 14 24 O11 29 28 F9 21 32
T10 30 35 O12 25 25 F11 20 25
T11 12 19 O14 20 23 F12 13 26
T12 11 19 O15 31 38
T13 20 33 O16 28 29
T14 18 20 O17 22 24
T16 23 23 O19 16 20
T17 13 19 O20 12 15
T19 30 32 O21 24 28
T20 16 25 O22 23 31
T21 21 18 O23 16 17
T22 19 19 O25 33 33
T24 18 18 O26 25 20
T26 17 22 O27 21 34

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

173

Traditional
(N=21) Pre Post
Online
(N=42) Pre Post
Flipped
(N=10) Pre Post

O28 15 24

O29 27 27

O30 20 18

O31 21 21

O32 16 21

O33 22 21

O34 22 30

O35 32 23

O36 26 35

O37 25 22

O38 21 19

O39 12 26

O40 20 27

O41 24 34

O42 28 35

O43 15 19

O44 17 19

O45 20 27

O47 22 24

O50 16 28

O51 23 31

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

174
C.3 Final Exam Points
Traditional
(N=21)
Total points out
of 150
Online
(N=42)
Total points out
of 250
Flipped
(N=21)
Total points out
of 200
T1 146 O2 151 F1 128
T3 99 O4 177 F2 197
T4 145 O5 210 F4 97.5
T5 115 O6 137 F5 120.5
T6 97 O7 87 F6 160.5
T7 110 O9 186 F7 155
T8 100 O10 204 F8 169.5
T9 128 O11 226 F9 167
T10 129 O12 193 F11 105.5
T11 34 O14 177 F12 142
T12 116 O15 244
T13 143 O16 176
T14 67 O17 176
T16 96 O19 107
T17 80 O20 147
T19 126 O21 183
T20 95 O22 223
T21 98 O23 145
T22 80 O25 222
T24 86 O26 140
T26 46 O27 112

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

175

Traditional
(N=21)
Total points out
of 150
Online
(N=42)
Total points out
of 250
Flipped
(N=21)
Total points out
of 200

O28 191

O29 146

O30 123

O31 185

O32 97

O33 161

O34 224

O35 204

O36 240

O37 139

O38 48

O39 173

O40 180

O41 238

O42 238

O43 50

O44 164

O45 194

O47 203

O50 223

O51 202

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

176
C.4 Survey Results

End of Course Survey Results — Traditional

N = 19 SD D N A SA
The course objectives and procedures were clear 0 0 0 9 10
The instructor was accessible to students outside of class. 0 0 3 7 9
The course was well organized. 0 0 1 7 11
The instructor knew the subject area. 0 0 0 4 15
The instructor encouraged students’ participation. 0 0 0 6 13
The course material was presented in a clear and effective way. 0 0 1 11 7
The instructor provided a good atmosphere for learning. 0 0 0 7 12
The instructor encouraged me to think for myself. 0 0 0 8 11
The instructor graded tests and assignments fairly. 0 0 0 9 10
The instructor informed students of their grades on exams and
assignments promptly.
0 2 5 7 5
The instructor demonstrated concern for students. 0 0 2 9 8
The instructor treated students fairly. 0 0 1 6 12

What are the instructor’s major strengths as a teacher?

• Professor knows his subject very well. He doesn’t teach from the book but provide many
good story and examples related to the topic.
• Charismatic and joyful easy to be around.
• In spite of the somewhat strong French accent, I think [he] is able to communicate his
subjects very well. In turn, he has demonstrated being able to keep his students engaged
in his lessons.
• Very understanding of students’ schedules and flexible with assignments within reason.
• He knows a lot about psychology.
• He is very funny which makes the class enjoyable. He is also very knowledgeable in his
field which helps him present the material very thoroughly.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

177
• Knew what he was talking about and gave great examples to help understand what is
being said.
• He’s able to make the class laugh. The class is fun because he tries to relate the material
back to us and what we think.
• Describing the things in detailed with lots of examples.
• His strengths as a teacher was that he was able to teach us the subject in a fun way. He
also encouraged a lot of student participation which is good.
• He never fails to fill the class with joy. His teaching style is very understandable and easy
to catch. He knows how handle concerns and he is a good communicator.
• Very experienced in the subject and very knowledgeable.
• Explained material in a way that everyone was able to understand, also willing to answer
any and all questions.
• I really like and interested in class when he showed and explained the videos, which to
support for the chapter. That help me a lot in understanding the content.

What changes, if any, do you suggest to the instructor?

• Personally, I wish there had been a study guide for the multiple choice side since there
was already one about the essay questions. Maybe [he] would think it’s too easy if he did
or doing so would lessen the incentive to study the textbook. However, I think it’s good
to have a better idea to be able to narrow down what things we should know, because he
doesn’t often mention what concepts in his lectures may be on the test to make up for the
fact that he has no study guide about it. If there was a little more covered in ALL of the
areas of the test in the study guide, then I probably would have given his class five stars
or something. If he does not decide to add guidelines to studying for the multiple choice
section of the test, then I think I would want him to recommend, beforehand to really
look into either telling the students the subjects to look out for or just to generally pay
closer attention to the multiple choice question activities you have to do in Launchpad.
• I do not have any new suggestions.
• Maybe add a group project to get the class to interact together
• The only thing I would suggest would be to talk slower and pronounce words better or
write them down. Either one works.
• Nothing
• Nothing, everything is okay, maybe just little change in time management, so we can
cover everything in a chapter.
• None

How did the instructor show concern for students?

• Didn’t have to. Just kept everyone interested
• [He] was able to show his concern by mentioning office hours, responding quickly to
emails, and sort of reminded students to study or something. The class participation in
lectures when called upon to define terms in the textbook was a bit sparse (whether they
actually read the textbook or a lot of the students in my class were just shy). So I noticed
that he seemed to have to change the way he presented his lectures somewhere in the
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

178
middle of the semester to attempt to get in more participation and enthusiasm from the
students.
• Kept them involved in class discussions, gave chances to make up.
• He reminded us of due dates to turn in our assignments. He also took care of the class as
we had many difficulties using the online program. He also gave quick email responses.
• Made sure we did our work and asked us if we had any troubles and would help us out.
• He asked if they were okay.
• He would be understanding and caring if we told him that the learning curve was not
working. He was available to us before, during, and after class to help us and also via
email.
• He asks how we are doing and he communicates with us.
• Responded to emails quickly

Would you recommend this instructor to students? Why or why not?

• Yes I would recommend [him] to other students because his class is easy and fun to be in.
And I learned a lot.
• Yes he is funny and charismatic. I didn’t even fall asleep once
• Yes, I would recommend Mr. Gross to future students. He’s a very fun teacher, knows his
subjects well, and puts a lot of thought into his lectures. If he decides not to “make the
study guide easier” by adding study guide tips to even the multiple choice section of the
tests, then I probably suggest for students to really study those in the Launchpad area,
reinforced by studying the textbook more closely. For the convenience of one’s learning
and [the instructor], please also study the textbook before class. I understand it’s hard, but
that’s certainly going to help you as the students answer the Launchpad and Semi-
Weekly Journals with ease.
• Yes because he’s a good professor that understands his material but has a slight French
accent.
• Yes!
• Yes, he taught me a lot of information not only about psychology, but tools I could use in
my real life.
• Yes. He knew what he was talking about and made the class really fun, better than I
expected.
• Yes! I would recommend [him] to other students because he is a great teacher. He makes
the class fun and entertaining. He knows what he’s talking about and he tries to relate
what we are learning to our lives. He’s a very funny and talkative teacher and he reminds
students if we have to do certain things by a certain date. He is understanding and caring,
as well.
• yes
• I would recommend him to students because he is an excellent teacher and knows his
subject well. He is also very caring towards students.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

179
What else would you like to say about this instructor?

• His accent is funny. It makes class a little quicker
• [He] was certainly a very enjoyable teacher to have. A brave teaching and a very adaptive
one, again, considering my class wasn’t the most “excited” or “best class,” participation-
wise.
• I would like to say thank you for a great semester.
• Adds humor at times and seems like a really good teacher.
• [He] is a great teacher to have when starting off college as a running start student. Mainly
because he helped us get through many difficulties and struggles my sister and I faced
because we didn’t know what to do.
• Nothing
• He is such a good teacher and I wish I could have him again. I would like to take his
other class next semester but he only teaches in date when I am not available. But, all in
all, he is outstanding.
• Great and animated professor

Other comments:

• Keep up the good work!

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

180
End of Course Survey Results — Online

N = 46 SD D N A SA
The course objectives and procedures were clear 1 0 5 18 22
The instructor was accessible to students outside of class. 0 0 11 22 13
The course was well organized. 0 1 2 21 22
The instructor knew the subject area. 0 0 7 8 21
The instructor encouraged students’ participation. 0 0 7 17 21
The course material was presented in a clear and effective way. 1 1 5 19 20
The instructor provided a good atmosphere for learning. 0 1 8 19 18
The instructor encouraged me to think for myself. 0 0 6 20 18
The instructor graded tests and assignments fairly. 1 1 9 15 20
The instructor informed students of their grades on exams and
assignments promptly.
0 1 8 20 17
The instructor demonstrated concern for students. 0 0 11 19 15
The instructor treated students fairly. 0 1 7 21 17

What are the instructor’s major strengths as a teacher?

• He made sure that we all had our own voice and understanding of the material he taught.
He kept is current with what assignments or exams were due.
• He knows the subject well and he’s not strict. His course is the most enjoyable one I’ve
had so far.
• he is very punctual
• He is willing to help you. He’s always there to respond to your email.
• VERY fast reply through email
• He does a great job at organizing his course. Everything is very clearly explained and you
know what to expect out of the course. He is also very prompt in his responses.
• Very organized
• Professor informs his students ahead of time the assignments that he has for us. He is
very generous with extra credits.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

181
• He knows the material and he is very accessible and helpful.
• The course was organized and expectations clearly explained from the start.
• He is always available to students
• [He] knew the material very well and encouraged us to think as both individuals and as a
class. He communicated with us very well and was also well organized.
• During discussions, he created questions that helped us think about the reading and how
it is applicable in our lives.
• He was very good with starting discussions and allowing students to think critically and
learn from one another.
• His major strengths were teaching us how to use the LaunchPad website to do our
homework. It really helped me understand Psychology more.
• Answered emails in a timely manner
• This was an online class, so I didn’t get to meet [him] in person, but he organized his
online class well and would respond to emails quickly.
• His post graduate study.
• He really is a great teacher because you can tell he really grades our work with effort
because of his feedback and it is appreciated.
• Knowledge of the subject.
• Even though this was an online class for me, he was able to respond to any questions that
I had for him at the time, asap.
• Available through email
• He is very genuine and thoughtful with his assignments!
• Compared to the other online classes I have taken, this was probably one of my favorites
because the textbook wasn’t overly difficult to read, the material was interesting and the
online program was very user friendly.
• Weekly discussions were great and interesting; good way for an online class to
participate more
• [He] was really easy to understand and follow throughout this course, even though it was
online. He knew his subject and he makes the lessons easier by explaining things better in
the discussion pages
• even though is was an on-line course, [he] responded very quick to questions/concerns I
had for this course. His assignments were clear and fair.
• He really knows the subject, he encourages students to think for themselves which helps
them to learn the subject more thoroughly.
• Positive feedback was pleasant.
• He understands that the subject is hard to learn. He also understands that it is hard
teaching online, but he knows how to make it easier for students. I like the way he
teaches through learning curve, that website is very helpful for us. I like that he makes us
participate in discussion logs because then we get to see what others think on the subject.
The discussion logs are very helpful because it makes us think about the subject in a
deeper way.
• Hard to say it was all online

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

182
What changes, if any, do you suggest to the instructor?

• None.
• it was helpful to have those emails about important tests coming up but after a while I
stopped getting them. granted because they were routine but in a way I missed them
• None
• nothing
• Overall, I really enjoyed taking this course. I did feel that the multiple choice for the
midterm was pretty difficult. If there was a way to better prepare us better for that section
would be great.
• Didn’t enjoy the wording was confusing on purpose. Book is stated clearly. Therefore,
the questions should have been as clear too.
• Nothing.
• I would enjoy a more detailed and updated score under the “grade book” section to reflect
a more accurate current grade.
• None the course was fair and manageable.
• LaunchPad is too glitchy....
• N/A
• No changes.
• Allow students to use notes during midterm and final exam due to exams being really
hard and expectations for essay questions on final exam hard to answer. These exams
made me feel as if there was no way for me to pass. He should encourage students not
make them feel discouraged.
• I felt that this class was very demanding in terms of assignments and quizzes. Personally,
I would spend nearly 4 days a week completing the assignments. There were weekly
quizzes and assignments, which is understandable, but it did seem a bit overwhelming. I
couldn’t do everything in one sitting, so that is the reason I had to spend 4 days a week
working on assignments. It was a lot of material to go through. Also, I like that [he] sent
us study guides for the essay questions (for the midterm and final exams), but I would
have liked to also have more information about the kinds of multiple choice questions
that were to be on the exam, without giving it away, of course. For example, maybe
specific sections or topics to study. I found it challenging to try to remember everything
in the book.
• Meet the class, at least once, and discuss the syllabus; and/or, the virtual barrier of an
online class, since KCC is a community college. Shouldn’t teachers and students work
hand-in- hand?
• I wish he could do online lectures instead to help us learn.
• Nothing that I could think of.
• I actually like the class as is!
• Videos and powerpoints could be a valuable resource
• none
• n/a
• N/A
• play a more interactive role with the student’s learning. Like replying to the posts or
doing a check up with them to see if things are going well.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

183
How did the instructor show concern for students?

• He made sure that all his students knew what they had to do in order to be able to pass
this class and he also made sure that everyone was able to study for the midterm with a
study guide.
• Replied back to emails
• He made sure to have us share our own opinions instead of simply agreeing with other
students.
• personally, through email
• You can tell he wanted them to succeed. Giving multiple chances on the quizzes not only
for the opportunity to score higher but to also learn more.
• n/a
• He helped students by giving students a study guide before the exams. He also helped us
by curving the test because a lot of students did not do so well. He understands that the
subject is hard, so maybe that is why he is more lenient.
• If we ever had questions or concerns in our studies, he reminded us that we could always
email him and that he’d reply as soon as he can.
• He gives constructive responses to everyone’s posts. It makes the online class feel more
interactive rather than just writing ideas and not getting enough personal feedback from
your instructor. Thank you for that!
• I didn’t get to speak with him much or see how he interacted with others considering it
was an online class
• He would email us right away of we had any questions, problems or concerns with the
material
• First week of class I almost missed an assignment, he then emailed me telling me to do it.
• He was very quick to reply to any emails I sent to him.
• Was very prompt and quick to response.
• I believe when students tell him that they could not complete an assignment due to
technical difficulties, he pushes the due date back so that we have a little bit more time to
complete the assignment.
• He frequently sent out announcements and emails reaching out to us.
• Updates via email, provided study guides, etc.
• He always emailed students about upcoming deadlines.
• He gave excellent study guides for the midterm exam and final exam. He lets you know
right off the bat what to expect in this distance class (online class) and what’s not
tolerated. He gives a lot of extra credit and gives many opportunities for his students to
do well.
• Emailing us and giving us a break for Thanksgiving.
• He responded quickly to concerns that students may have had. (i.e. grades, concerns with
online program.)
• He showed concern by emailing us study guides for exams and reminding us when to
take our tests.
• allowed us to do this for 10 bonus points
• He would respond to emails quickly and answer questions.
• He always gave feedback for each student for our discussions.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

184
• Since this was an online class, after taking he midterm, he broke down the scoring and
talked about if you landed in this certain area of the grade, for example a D or C, he
basically said to step our game up.
• He reads all of our discussions/posts and inputs his thoughts/comments/advice on what
we wrote about.

Would you recommend this instructor to students? Why or why not?

• I would definitely recommend his class. He makes it a point for you to learn the material.
It’s not an easy A. He makes it a point that the amount of work you put into the class,
your grade will reflect that effort.
• Yes, being in his course was an enjoyable experience for me.
• I would if students can keep up with deadlines efficiently, that’s what this course mostly
wraps around
• Yes. As long as you do your work and stay on top of deadlines, this class should be fair.
• Yes, very good course.
• I took him in an online course I would recommend him to other students. Though his
course does require a lot of time, if you put in the effort you will do well in his course.
• Yes, because very organized for an online class.
• Yes, because he encourages students to think for themselves and participate in class
discussions that are very interesting and intriguing. And did I mention extra credit!
• Yes, his class was organized and thought provoking. I actually learned something.
• Yes, because the class was well conducted.
• Yes I would. His online class is better structured than regular psychology in class
teaching.
• Yes! I have been recommending him to friends who have not taken an online class. I
explain to them that Professor Gross is well organized and knows the material very well.
He also gives many opportunities for extra credit which is awesome!
• Yes because it is a great course.
• N/A
• Yes, even though it was an online class he made sure you do your tests on time and
homework.
• yeah if he changes his exams and if they are looking for an online class
• Yes. He is a good instructor who makes himself available to his students.
• No. Confusing class.
• I would recommend his class because he gives assignments to make us understand the
subject.
• Yes. This course was planned well from the start. He had everything planned out for the
rest of the semester. He stated in the syllabus what is expected on certain days.
Everything was either due on a Sunday or a Thursday and it was up to the student to do it
and turn it in whenever they want up to the due date.
• Yes, because he makes psychology class and the workload reasonable. Doesn’t
overwhelm you with too much assignments and gives you ample time to complete them. I
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

185
also like the fact that he gives extra credit, which helps a lot since the exams aren’t the
easiest.
• Yes because he’s a pretty good teacher and he actually cares about his students. And he
also knows this topic well.
• Yes
• Absolutely. He is a great teacher and knows his subject well!
• Yes!
• Yes, doable online class and [he] does not assign too much work
• Yes, his class course is not only interesting, but it’s also easier to manage, especially if
you’re taking it online.
• Yes, for an online class, just do the work and you can get through it. You learn a lot but it
is very self-disciplined.
• Yes.
• Absolutely! He presented a very good learning environment and the class was a pleasure.
• Yes, I will recommend Philippe Gross to students. He has the entire course laid out for
students. Students can do work ahead of time if they wanted to.
• yes, its very organized and the instructions are clear

What else would you like to say about this instructor?

• Thank you for being my teacher and teaching me more about psychology!
• Thanks for choosing such a fun textbook to read!
• Great online class!
• Good class more self taught but there is little interaction with peers and teacher....teacher
does know material well and helps when needed... Only suggestion Is for the exams I
liked the study guide for mid-terms but maybe having smaller tests after every 2 or 3
chapters rather then 2 big tests in the semester.
• Thank you for being a cool teacher!
• nothing else
• Great teacher!
• Good instructor. The course was very interesting.
• None
• He is one of the best teachers.
• Thank you so much for such an awesome semester!! I didn’t feel like the class was
rushed, it was definitely well balanced.
• N/A
• he’s okay not one of my favorite teachers i have had
• He is one fair and knowledgeable professor for the course.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

186
Other comments:

• I wish I could take your courses every semester! Have a nice winter break!!
• I have been missing from the message board assignments that would’ve given me a better
idea of how he is as a teacher and that is my own mistake. Also for not letting him know
what was going on with my end and why I haven’t been so active in that area.
• The LaunchPad was a great way to understand a variety of examples for all the topics in
the book. It is also a big help on studying for exams. However, the LaunchPad has so
many glitches that it becomes irritating sometimes. Hopefully, they make improvements
before the next semester starts.
• Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
• None
• Thank you so much for an awesome semester! I definitely learned a lot and I look
forward to my career in social work! Happy Holidays!
• N/A
• Change materials. LaunchPad sucks.
• Keep doing what you are doing!
• I was not a big fan of the launchpad site where we did majority of our assignments. It had
too many glitches and it seems to not be compatible with certain web browsers. I also
didn’t like the fact that the launchpad site was performing maintenance/updates several
times when I would log on to do my assignments, which I had to always adjust/adapt to
the changes.
• Mahalo!
• The only thing that was just a little troubled was the Macmillan course. Always had
problems but the professor was good to extend assignment/quizzes.
• overall a good course.

ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

187
End of Course Survey Results — Flipped

N = 11 SD D N A SA
The course objectives and procedures were clear 0 0 0 4 7
The instructor was accessible to students outside of class. 0 0 1 4 6
The course was well organized. 0 0 1 4 6
The instructor knew the subject area. 0 0 0 0 11
The instructor encouraged students’ participation. 0 0 0 1 10
The course material was presented in a clear and effective way. 0 0 1 4 6
The instructor provided a good atmosphere for learning. 0 0 0 0 11
The instructor encouraged me to think for myself. 0 0 0 2 9
The instructor graded tests and assignments fairly. 0 0 0 1 10
The instructor informed students of their grades on exams and
assignments promptly. 0 0 0 5 6
The instructor demonstrated concern for students. 0 0 0 1 10
The instructor treated students fairly. 0 0 0 0 11

What are the instructor’s major strengths as a teacher?

• [His] strengths as a teacher is that he’s super knowledge about his area based off of his
past jobs he has had working for the state. He really uses the knowledge and experience
he has to teach students.
• He’s very knowledgeable in his field. He takes many practical examples as good teaching
materials. His lecture is fun and also easy to understand.
• [He] is full of knowledge in his are. He also has lots of interesting experiences that is
relatable to the subject he is teaching. Finally he lots of interesting educational activities
that help us learn in ways we would never pick up from reading a textbook. His passion
for his subject is contagious, and class is always interesting.
• [He] definitely provided us with prompt deadlines, and made assignments very clear. Out
of all my 5 classes, this class was a class I looked forward to the most due to Professor
Gross’ attitude towards the subject and students. He was always on time, clear about
assignments, fair in assignments, and explicit when answering my questions.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

188
• [He] does very well in explaining and teaching and is very enthusiastic.
• [He] seems to genuinely care about his students and is very passionate about Psychology
that it’s really evident is his work and quality of education.
• Dr. Gross definitely knows his subject, and does very well in sharing his own knowledge
to his students. He is attentive in analyzing what the students know and don’t know. He
then uses this to thoroughly explain what ever it is the class has a hard time
understanding. The class activities are relevant and strengthens the understanding of the
information being taught.
• Professor Gross is skilled at making students feel comfortable in class and constantly
encourages participation. He has a very interactive and fun teaching style that keeps
student’s attention. He is also kind and fair, it is easy to talk to him.
• Connects well with students. Very understanding and fun. Always has time for students
and responds quickly.
• He really knows his topic and is always prepared. He keeps us involved and answers and
questions and concerns we have.

What changes, if any, do you suggest to the instructor?

• Maybe try a new class book and online assignment server. Great concept, but horrible
online assignment server. Launch pad is horrible and I mean horrible, someone needa call
somebody because this website server is horrible in service it has so many bugs its not
even funny.
• None
• Sometimes the lectures seem a little unorganized and kind of like it’s an impromptu
speech where he is going off on a topic randomly. I think classes would have been better
if it wasn’t accelerated, but still on Saturday. I feel like I wanted to have more time
exploring each chapter and doing more activites. Also launchpad seemed pretty bad this
semester, I hope they work out the kinks so that it runs smoothly for everyone.
• Buy more shoes.
• LaunchPad. Although the idea of LaunchPad was great (reinforcement of information,
interactive and engaging way of learning), however, the system was not very dependable
(the fill the blanks gave wrong answers, login failures, etc.)
• I was a bit uneasy at times with the structure of the class. I feel as though some
assignments and expectations were not explained clearly enough.
• Fix things with LaunchPad.

How did the instructor show concern for students?

• He has made sure to ask before, during, and after class to see if anyone had any concerns
or questions they had about the class. Replies fast to emails which is super great but
sometimes it trips me out on how fast he replies.
• He did take care of students by communicating with students. I could feel very close
interaction with the teacher. He always encourages students to be more participative.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

189
• He always asks us if we have any problems/concerns. He promptly answers emails and
he has office hours that we can go to if we have any issues with his class.
• When Launchpad acted up, [he] never hesitated to change our due dates, or extend the
deadline; that showed he was concerned for our well being, not just our education. In
class, [he] never failed to ask us if we had any questions; that showed he was concerned
for our education.
• Extended deadlines on online assignments, understanding the technical difficulties on
launchpad.
• [he] regularly checked in with students to see how they were doing in class and followed
up on missing assignments and the like.
• [He] continually checked for understanding and would ask for individual feedback in
class. He showed concern for students’ understanding and would continually seek
feedback in order to ensure everyone in class knew the material.
• He is very understanding and flexible. His attitude helped encourage me to do a good job
on assignments.
• Constantly asking if we got everything or we needed help on anything. Welcoming
students to talk if we need any help or if we have any problems with the material.
• He helped us with any problems in and out of class. If you email him he responds back
quickly.

Would you recommend this instructor to students? Why or why not?

• Yes he is a great teacher and explains well!!
• Definitely yes. It’s really helpful and interesting contents in PSY 100. [He] is well-
prepared lecturer and he never make this subject boring to students. He “psychologically”
motivates students to study well.
• yes! I enjoyed his class very much.
• I would definitely recommend him to other students because one; he’s not monotone and
boring, and two; granted he has a sense of humor and is not boring to listen to, but you
will definitely understand the material and assignments clearly (despite his accent).
• Yes, because I admire his teaching style. I never got bored of his class and is very well at
lecturing.
• I would recommend him to students in the future because he is a good teacher that
actually cares about the success of his students.
• Yes, I would definitely recommend him. As I have taken Psych classes more than once, I
feel like [he] really makes sure the students in the class understands the material, and is
very helpful. As a student, I respect professors that really show that they care about their
students, which encourages me to do better and really understand the material to perform
well in the class. Professor Gross does exactly that, which is why I am submitting this
survey.
• I would recommend [him] to students because of his interactiveness and flexibility.
• Yes, easy and fun class. Great for students with a lot of things on their hands and very
great teacher.
• Yes, if you are prepared for what you are going to do.
ONLINE, FLIPPED, AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

190
What else would you like to say about this instructor?

• Honestly wish I took his in class version instead because I felt I would have learned
better and easier because once again the book and online assignments is sometimes hard
to learn and comprehend.
• Thank you so much for teaching well this semester.
• I enjoyed his enthusiasm, his activities and his personality. Great class!
• [He] definitely knows his stuff, and he has a lot of experience in his field, so none of my
questions were left unanswered or answered incorrectly.
• Interesting class taught by an interesting man. Looking forward to taking class with [him]
in the future
• I think [he] has done a very good job as an instructor in helping me learn, understand, and
apply the information that he taught in this course. I could not find anything negative to
say about the professor, and I am sad that the class is over :(
• Thank you for holding the Saturday class for all the full time working students! It was
enjoyable and I would like to take another class with you as the professor.

Other comments:

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Evolutionary changes in educational technology are leading to revolutionary changes in the nature of higher education. This revolution is prompting many higher education institutions to offer more flexible learning opportunities through online and blended (i.e. hybrid) courses as well as to utilize more innovative strategies of instruction. The flipped or inverted classroom design has recently appeared in the literature touting positive results such as: it increases student-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction, allows for more personalized instruction, enhances independent learning skills, improves student-learning outcomes, maximizes the amount of material taught, and increases student satisfaction. However, few studies have looked at is effectiveness in comparison to other instructional formats. The main purpose of this study was to investigate student performance across three different educational formats: online, flipped, and traditional face-to-face. Additionally the study explored student perceptions on the instructor and the course across the three classes. Participants included 83 students (42 students went through the online instructional format, 21 students went through the traditional instructional format, and 10 students went through the flipped instructional format) at a community college in the State of Hawaii. Data from a demographic survey, pre-test, post-test and end of course survey were collected. In addition, final exam scores were recorded and analyzed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the pre and post test scores across the three instructional formats, while an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the final exam scores across the three instructional formats. Descriptive statistics such as averages, mean scores, and mean scores were used to analyze the demographic data and end of course survey results. Results of the ANCOVA showed that there was no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores across the three instructional formats. ❧ However, the ANOVA showed that that final exam scores were significantly higher for participants in the flipped method compared to the traditional method, and participants in the online method compared to the traditional method. However, no statistically significant difference in final exam scores was observed between participants in the flipped method and in the online method. Additionally, the end of course survey results showed that overall students in all three courses had a positive perception of the instructor and course. Specifically, students in the flipped instruction method had the most positive perceptions, followed by students in the traditional instruction method, and lastly by students in the online instruction method. The findings from this research study not only add to the existing body of knowledge on the flipped classroom but it also implies that the flipped classroom is a credible or better alternative to traditional and online courses. Although further research is needed to understand fully the benefits of the flipped classroom, thus far the literature is continuing to show that it may be a superior method of instruction.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Organizational onboarding and socialization of adjunct clinical faculty in nursing education

PDF

Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

An exploratory study of professional development to improve student reading: a case study in Oahu Hawaii

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system

PDF

Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting

PDF

African American airmen and the CCAF degree: a mixed methods study conducted on joint base Pearl Harbor-Hickam

PDF

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

Personnel resource allocations: a case study of one Hawaii complex

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Development of higher education student affairs staff to assist U.S. military veteran college students

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

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education

Asset Metadata

Creator Prepose, Lauren Sachiko (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/29/2015

Defense Date 03/27/2015

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

Tag blended or hybrid instruction,flipped classroom,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,online instruction,student performance outcomes,traditional instruction

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Datta, Monique C. (committee member)

Creator Email lsprepose@gmail.com,prepose@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-570066

Unique identifier UC11298986

Identifier etd-PreposeLau-3455.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-570066 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PreposeLau-3455.pdf

Dmrecord 570066

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Prepose, Lauren Sachiko

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